EEOC Proposes New Regulations Under ADAA.

Last week, the EEOC proposed new ADA regulations to implement the Americans With Disabilities Amendment Act (ADAA) which took affect on January 1, 2009. The new regulations were published this morning in the Federal Register. The EEOC published a Q&A brochure about the new regulations on its website last week. Among other things, the new regulations indicate the existence of per se disabilities and per se non-disabilities.

Impairments. The proposed regulations indicate that certain “impairments will consistently meet the definition of disability,” and assessment of the existence of a disability can be conducted quickly and easily in these situations, such as when the individual has cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV or AIDS, multiple sclerosis, major depression, PTSD, etc. By way of comparison, other impairments may be disabling for some and not for others. Still others will typically not be considered disabilities, such as the common cold, seasonal or common flue, sprains, non-chronic gastrointestinal disorders, etc.

Major Life Activities. As discussed in a prior summary at Congress Passes ADA Amendments Act to Abrogate Pro-Employer Supreme Court Decisions, the ADAA broadened the definition of “major life activity” and provided that disability should be broadly construed in favor of coverage. With that in mind, the new proposed regulations specify that major life activities include “concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others”, etc. and that an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity if that person is limited in any one of those activities, regardless of whether the individual is substantially limited in the ability to work or limited “in the ability to perform activities of central importance to daily life.” Rather, “an impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered a disability.” Moreover, “[t]he comparison of an individual’s limitation to the ability of most people in the general population often may be made using a common sense standard, without resorting to scientific or medical evidence.”

That being said, the EEOC still proposes a regulation on what it means to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working. An impairment will be considered to substantially limit the ability to work “if it substantially limits an individual’s ability to perform, or to meet the qualifications for, the type of work at issue” which “includes the job the individual has the individual has been performing, or for which the individual is applying, and jobs with similar qualifications or job-related requirements which the individual would be substantially limited in performing because of the impairment.”

While there is a “transitory and minor” exception to “substantially working” for impairments which are not expected to last more than six months, this exception “does not establish a durational minimum for the definition of ‘disability’” for an actual disability or record of disability. “An impairment may substantially limit a major life activity even if it lasts, or is expected to last, for fewer than six months.” Notably, “the focus is on how a major life activity is substantially limited, not on what an individual can do in spite of an impairment.” In addition, “[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. Examples may include . . . asthma, . . . psychiatric disabilities, such as depression,” etc.

Mitigating Measures. The ADAA removed the “mitigating measures” doctrine from the consideration of what constitutes a covered disability, except with respect to the use of contacts or eye glasses. As stated in the proposed regulations, an individual who would be substantially limited in a major life activity without the use of medication or other mitigating measure would be considered to be disabled. By way of example, “[a]n individual who is taking a psychiatric medication for depression, . . . has a disability if there is evidence that the mental impairment, . . if left untreated, would substantially limit a major life activity.”

Record of Impairment. An individual has a covered record of disability if the individual has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” For example, “[a]n employee who in the past was misdiagnosed with bipolar disorder and hospitalized as the result of a temporary reaction to medication she was taking has a record of a substantially limiting impairment, even though she did not actually have bipolar disorder.”

Regarded As Disabled. An individuals will have a covered disability

if the individual is subjected to an action prohibited by this part, including . .denial of any other term, condition, or privilege of employment based on an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. Proof that the individual was subjected to a prohibited employment action e.g., excluded from one job, because of an impairment other than an impairment that is transitory and minor . . . ) is sufficient to establish coverage. . . . Evidence that the employer believed the individual was substantially limited in any major life activity is not required.

(emphasis added).

“[C]overage can be established whether or not the employer was motivated by myths, fears, or stereotypes. . . an individual is regarded as disabled when an [employer] takes some action prohibited by the ADA . . . because of an actual or perceived impairment” or symptoms or “mitigating measures, such as medication that an individual uses because of an impairment.”

Proof that the individual was subjected to a prohibited employment action . . . is sufficient to establish coverage under the ‘regarded as’ definition . . . Evidence that the employer believed the individual was substantially limited in any major life activity is not required.

Employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who are merely regarded as disabled, but are to employees who are actually disabled or have a record of disability.

Defenses. Employers may still defend accusations of disability discrimination by showing that the employee did not establish that he or she was otherwise qualified for the position based on a “qualification standard” that is “job related and consistent with business necessity,” or that she or she poses “a direct threat to health or safety based on the best available objective medical evidence and an individualized assessment of the risk if any, posed.” Employers may also argue that the impairment was both transitory and minor.

The EEOC will accept written comments on the proposed rules until November 23, 2009.

Insomniacs can read the proposed regulations at http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-22840.pdf and the EEOC’s Questions and Answer brochure at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_adaaa_nprm.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC Obtains $4.5M Settlement Based on ADEA Disparate Impact Claim When Insurance Company Adopted Year-Long Hiring Freeze

On Friday, the EEOC announced “a major settlement of an age discrimination class lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company, one of the nation’s largest insurers, for $4,500,000 to be paid to approximately 90 older former employees, in addition to significant remedial relief.”

The EEOC filed a lawsuit under the ADEA against Allstate in October 2004alleging “that in the year 2000 Allstate adopted a hiring moratorium for a period of one year, or while severance benefits were being received, that applied to all its employee-sales agents who were part of its Preparing For The Future Reorganization Program. The program was part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors. The EEOC alleged that the policy had a disproportionate impact on Allstate’s employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older. Allstate denies that its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA.” Disparate impact claims were recognized by the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Smith v. City of Jackson.

The terms of the settlement, which is “pending approval by U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (Civil Action No. 4:04CV01359 ERW), Allstate will pay former employees who sought employment -- or would have sought employment with the company in the absence of its policy -- a total of $4.5 million to be divided among the class via a settlement fund. The order, in effect for three years, also provides for discrimination prevention training, posting of notices, reporting and monitoring, and other relief designed to educate Allstate managers in order to prevent future violations of the ADEA.” A 2007 settlement for $250,000 of disparate treatment claims under ADEA brought by two individual employees is not part of this larger settlement agreement.

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-11-09a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth and Third Circuits Address Employment Discrimination Against Gay and Lesbian Employees.

At the end of August, the federal Sixth and Third Circuit Courts of Appeal both addressed the same issue: whether gay and lesbian employees could pursue religion discrimination claims under Title VII against employers who discriminated against them on account of their sexual orientation. In both cases, the Courts refused to permit the employees to pursue religion discrimination claims under Title VII on the grounds that they were not being discriminated against because of their religious or other voluntary beliefs, but rather, because of who they were. However, in both cases, the Court found possible alternative theories of relief for the plaintiffs. In the Sixth Circuit, the Court found the plaintiffs could maintain a constitutional First Amendment claim against the non-profit employer on account of legislative appropriations to that specific agency. Pedreira v. Kentucky Baptists Homes for Children, Inc., No. 08-5583 (6th Cir. 8/31/09). In the Third Circuit, the court found the plaintiff could pursue a sex-stereotyping claim on the grounds that he was being discriminated against for not being a stereotypical macho, blue-collar man. Prowel v. Wise Business Forms, Inc., No. 07-3997 (3rd Cir. 8/28/09).

Title VII Claims

The Pedreira plaintiff was terminated from her position with the non-profit children’s home “because her admitted homosexual lifestyle is contrary to Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children core values.” After her termination, the employer announced a policy of refusing to employ any homosexuals. She brought a claim under the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, which was analyzed as a Title VII claim. The Court, however, found that she failed to state a claim for relief: “Pedreira does not allege that her sexual orientation is premised on her religious beliefs or lack thereof, nor does she state whether she accepts or rejects Baptist beliefs. While there may be factual situations in which an employer equates an employee’s sexuality with her religious beliefs or lack thereof, in this case, Pedreira has “failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.” See also Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757, 762 (6th Cir. 2006) (Title VII does not encompass discrimination on account of sexual orientation). In short, the plaintiff did not allege that her sexual orientation was a voluntary decision akin to religious beliefs and practices. Another plaintiff brought a failure to hire claim on the grounds that she did not apply for a social worker opening because of the employer’s homophobic policy. The court surprisingly dismissed that claim on the grounds it was speculative (in that she never applied for a job) instead of on the grounds that such discrimination is not actionable under either Title VII or the KCRA. Thus, the possibility remains that the Sixth Circuit could recognize a case of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII under a different factual situation.

The Prowell plaintiff was involuntarily laid off after he complained about workplace harassment on account of his sexual orientation. He filed suit, claiming that he was unlawfully discriminated against in violation of Title VII on account of his sex and religion. Like the Pedreira case, the Third Circuit dismissed the religion discrimination claim because his testimony showed that he was discriminated against on account of his sexual orientation, not his beliefs or the religious beliefs of others. Like the Sixth Circuit, the Third Circuit had previously determined that Title VII did not encompass discrimination on account of sexual orientation. Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co., 260 F.3d 257 (3d Cir.2001).


However, the Third Circuit found that the Prowell plaintiff could pursue a sex stereotyping claim to the same extent that a woman could. The plaintiff described himself as an “effeminate man” and claimed he did not fit in with his other male co-workers because he did not conform to gender stereotypes. Because the facts of the harassment showed that the plaintiff had been harassed about his non-macho mannerisms and lifestyle even before his sexual orientation became public knowledge, he could show that his discrimination was related to the fact that he did not conform to societal stereotypes about how a “real” man is supposed to act. Title VII has for some years now prohibited discrimination against women who did not fit societal stereotypes of “ladies.”

First Amendment Claims

In Pedreira, the plaintiffs also brought a taxpayer suit challenging state support of a non-profit with a religious mission on the grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “In their amended complaint, they refer to the Kentucky statutes authorizing the funding of services such as KBHC. However, nowhere in the record before the district court did the plaintiffs explain what the nexus is between their suit and a federal legislative action. The district court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations were more akin to those in Hein, which raised a general Establishment Clause challenge to federal agencies’ use of federal money to promote the President’s faith-based initiatives.” In the end, the Court determined that the plaintiffs lacked standing as federal taxpayers, but not as state taxpayers.

“As with federal taxpayer standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate “a good-faith pocketbook” injury to demonstrate state taxpayer standing . . . . The plaintiffs point to the alleged $100 million received by KBHC from Kentucky as the requisite “pocketbook” injury . . . . the Kentucky legislature also appropriated sums of money specifically to KBHC. 2005 Ky. Laws Ch. 173 (HB 267) (H)(10)(5), available at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/05RS/HB267.htm. Unlike in the federal taxpayer analysis,the plaintiffs have alleged a “concrete and particularized” injury.”

In addition, “the plaintiffs have sufficiently demonstrated a link between the challenged legislative actions and the alleged constitutional violations, namely that Kentucky’s statutory funding for neglected children in private childcare facilities knowingly and impermissibly funds a religious organization. As discussed above, the plaintiffs have pointed to Kentucky statutory authority, legislative citations acknowledging KBHC’s participation, and specific legislative appropriations to KBHC. Through these specifications, the plaintiffs have demonstrated a nexus between Kentucky and its allegedly impermissible funding of a pervasively sectarian institution.”

Insomniacs can read the full court decisions at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0316p-06.pdf and http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073997p.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Revives Claim of Sex Discrimination in Hiring When HR Director Could Not Get Her Story Straight.

Today, a divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a claim that the company had refused to hire a female applicant on account of her sex. Peck v. Elyria Foundry, No. 08-3301 (6th Cir. 9/9/09). In doing so, the Court found that a jury could determine whether the employer’s HR Director was being truthful when she testified in her deposition that she hired less qualified male applicants because she thought the female applicant only wanted certain jobs and/or because the employer did not have adequate “facilities” for female employees and/or because the plaintiff had a poor attendance record and/or because her attorney sent an inflammatory letter and/or because of a physical impairment. The Court concluded that the inconsistencies in the HR Director’s explanation created sufficient pretext to warrant the case being submitted to a jury to determine who was the most credible.

In the decision, the Court relates that the plaintiff and her boyfriend both applied for jobs at the defendant employer. The plaintiff had relevant experience which she listed on her application, but her boyfriend did not. He indicated that he would take any job, but she listed two possible positions – as a tow motor operator and a grinder -- and a “?.” She also put “?” when asked about her desired salary. Her boyfriend was hired but she was not. Her many phone calls inquiring about the status of her application were never returned. When she questioned the HR Director, she was told that her application was still being considered and she would be called in a few days. She was not.

The plaintiff retained an attorney, who wrote the company and alleged sex discrimination. When the company failed to respond, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and then filed suit for sex discrimination.

The district court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove a prima facie case because she only applied for tow operator and grinder positions and there were no tow operators hired and she was physically precluded from grinding However, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was a factual dispute because her application indicated that she would take any job when she put “?” next to those to job titles. Such an application put the employer on reasonable notice that she would take something other than the two listed jobs, particularly when she put the same mark next to desired salary.

The Court also found she was qualified for the jobs because she had five years of relevant prior experience, unlike fourteen of the men hired since the time of her application. In any event, the HR Director conceded that the plaintiff appeared to be qualified from the face of her job application.

The Court also found possible pretext in the HR Director’s explanation for why the plaintiff was not hired. In the affidavit filed with the motion for summary judgment, the HR Director indicated that the job application was limited to the two listed positions. However, in her deposition she testified that the employer’s “facilities” for women needed improvement and she delayed plaintiff’s application while waiting for these improvements. (Surprisingly, the plaintiff did not argue that this was discriminatory under Title VII even though Title VII prohibits discriminatory facilities.) Still later, the HR Director testified that a current employee and former co-worker of the plaintiff had relayed that the plaintiff was an unreliable employee because of unreliable transportation and childcare. Finally, her application was set aside after receiving letter from the plaintiff’s attorney which was full of “insults and lies.” (Again, it was surprising that the plaintiff did not bring a retaliation claim for a refusal to hire her after the employer had been accused of sex discrimination.).

Employers may have more than one reason for passing on a job candidate. And considered individually, any of [the employer’s] reasons for not hiring [the plaintiff] could explain its hiring decision. The problem here, however, is that some of its reasons are inconsistent at best, if not outright contradictory, and are thus “so intertwined” that the credibility of any of them is in doubt. . . . Moreover, “an employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext." Here, it would be a logical feat for a jury to believe both [the HR Director’s] testimony that she did not hire [the plaintiff] because she thought [the plaintiff] did not apply for more than two positions and that she did consider her more broadly, yet passed because she received damning input from a former coworker, and because the women’s bathrooms were not up to par. A contradiction by the same employee in the same deposition raises serious credibility concerns; either [the HR Director] considered [the plaintiff] for more than two positions or she did not.

The Court majority also found it problematic that the HR Director claimed to keep the plaintiff’s application open – despite receiving negative reports from a former co-worker – until the inflammatory letter received by the plaintiff’s attorney. During the time period between when plaintiff applied and her attorney wrote the company, the employer hired 22 men – many of whom had no relevant prior experience for their new job.

In contrast, the dissent argued that the HR Director’s testimony was not inconsistent. Although the HR Director “honestly believed” that the plaintiff only applied for two positions, she held her application open in case one of those positions ultimately became available. Nonetheless, the majority found this to be irrelevant because the plaintiff presented evidence that the employer sometimes hired men for positions different from the jobs listed on their applications. In other words, the employer was limiting the female applicant to the jobs listed on her application, but was not similarly limiting male applicants.

Our conclusion that these inconsistencies suggest pretext does not mean that a company is precluded from pursuing alternative lines of defense to convince a jury that its decision was not motivated by sex discrimination. But at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff may meet her burden of demonstrating pretext by showing, in addition to proffered evidence, that an employer’s reasons are so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory that a rational jury could conclude the reasons were not believable.

Finally, the Court found no evidence that any of the men hired instead of the plaintiff were more qualified than her or that her medical condition would have disqualified her from non-grinder positions.

Therefore, the case was remanded for the district court to hold a trial on the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim. (The plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint to add a public policy claim based on the retaliation she suffered from her attorney writing a letter was denied on the grounds that Ohio only recognizes public policy torts in wrongful discharges, not in failure to hire disputes).

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0634n-06.pdf.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

EEOC: Taco Bell to Pay $350K to Two Teenaged Employees Who Were Raped by Store Manager at Work.

On Friday, the EEOC announced that it had settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Taco Bell alleging that two minor employees had been raped by a store manager in Memphis. One of the girls was raped on her first day of work and another five months earlier. The manager was ultimately criminally charged, pled guilty to the rapes in 2009 and was sentenced to two eight-year terms as well as permanent designation as a sex offender under Tennessee law. The EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02579, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis) alleged violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sexual harassment.

Under the terms of the consent decree, “ Taco Bell will pay a total of $350,000” and “will maintain a written policy against sexual harassment and will widely distribute it to all employees” in that region “within 30 days of the entry of the decree. The company will also conduct anti-discrimination training and posting of anti-discrimination notices.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-28-09a.html.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.