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.
Showing posts with label Sixth Circuit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sixth Circuit. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
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.).
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Sixth Circuit: School Violated FMLA By Placing Employee on Involuntary, Unpaid Leave in Part Because FMLA Leave
On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment entered in favor of an Ohio school district employer on an employee’s FMLA claim. In Hunter v. Valley View Local Schools, No. 08-4109 (6th Cir. 8/26/09), the School District placed the employee on an involuntary and unpaid leave of absence for two years when she attempted to return to work with significant medical restrictions following an FMLA medical leave of absence. In doing so, the School’s superintendant testified that the decision was motivated both by the plaintiff’s excessive absenteeism (which consisted almost entirely of her FMLA medical leave of absence) and medical restrictions placed by the employee’s physician. The plaintiff brought suit in state court alleging violations of the FMLA and Ohio’s disability discrimination statute. The district court in Dayton found that the employer would have treated the plaintiff the same regardless of her FMLA leave, granted summary judgment to the school on the FMLA claim and refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law disability discrimination claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed on the grounds that that the school employer illegally discriminated against the plaintiff in violation of the FMLA by placing her on involuntary and unpaid leave in part because of her protected use of the FMLA.
As noted by the Sixth Circuit: “An employer may not discriminate or retaliate against an employee for taking FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). In particular, an employer is prohibited from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) . . . . Employers who violate the FMLA are liable to the employee for damages. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1) . . . There are two theories of recovery under the FMLA: an interference (or entitlement) theory and a retaliation (or discrimination) theory.” Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2348-49 (2009), the Court determined that Title VII’s burden-shifting approached remained applicable to mixed-motive FMLA retaliation claims.
Further, the Court recognized that FMLA regulations prohibit employers from taking FMLA leave into account when making adverse employment decisions: “employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under “no fault” attendance policies.29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) (emphasis added). . . . . The phrase ‘a negative factor’ envisions that the challenged employment decision might also rest on other, permissible factors.”
The school superintendent’s testimony that she considered the plaintiff’s FMLA absences as a negative factor in placing her on an involuntary and unpaid leave of absence was found to constitute direct evidence of impermissible motive because employers are not permitted under FMLA regulations to use FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions. Further, when the superintendent denied that she would have placed the plaintiff on unpaid leave solely because of her medical restrictions – which might have created an issue of disability discrimination and unlawful failure to accommodate -- the court had no difficulty in finding the illegal consideration of FMLA leave was a motivating factor.
Insomniacs may read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0311p-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.
As noted by the Sixth Circuit: “An employer may not discriminate or retaliate against an employee for taking FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). In particular, an employer is prohibited from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) . . . . Employers who violate the FMLA are liable to the employee for damages. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1) . . . There are two theories of recovery under the FMLA: an interference (or entitlement) theory and a retaliation (or discrimination) theory.” Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2348-49 (2009), the Court determined that Title VII’s burden-shifting approached remained applicable to mixed-motive FMLA retaliation claims.
Further, the Court recognized that FMLA regulations prohibit employers from taking FMLA leave into account when making adverse employment decisions: “employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under “no fault” attendance policies.29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) (emphasis added). . . . . The phrase ‘a negative factor’ envisions that the challenged employment decision might also rest on other, permissible factors.”
The school superintendent’s testimony that she considered the plaintiff’s FMLA absences as a negative factor in placing her on an involuntary and unpaid leave of absence was found to constitute direct evidence of impermissible motive because employers are not permitted under FMLA regulations to use FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions. Further, when the superintendent denied that she would have placed the plaintiff on unpaid leave solely because of her medical restrictions – which might have created an issue of disability discrimination and unlawful failure to accommodate -- the court had no difficulty in finding the illegal consideration of FMLA leave was a motivating factor.
Insomniacs may read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0311p-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.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sixth Circuit: Employer’s Resentment of Work Employee Missed Due to Military Service Supported Imposing Wrongful Discharge Liability Under USERRA.
Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a bench trial verdict in a wrongful discharge case brought under USERRA by an employee who had been fired in part because of insubordination, but which the trial court found was motivated mostly by the employee’s missing work because of his national guard service. The Court, however, remanded the case for reconsideration of the $352,846 of damages imposed by the trial judge. Hance v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 07-5475 (6th Cir. 7/1/09). Although the employee’s alleged insubordination had been independently investigated and substantiated in a union arbitration, the Court believed there was sufficient evidence that the employer would not have terminated the employee for the alleged insubordination if his supervisor and manager had not both expressed resentment of the amount of work he missed because of his national guard service.
As stated by the Court:
The Court also refused to accord res judicata status to the labor arbitration which upheld the plaintiff’s discharge for insubordination. Although courts “accord broad deference” to arbitration decisions, the Court has
Insomniacs may read the decision in full at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0224p-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.
As stated by the Court:
On appeal, [the employer] argues that the district court erred in attributing antimilitary animus to [the employer]and in concluding that [the employer] failed to prove that a nondiscriminatory reason actually motivated the discharge. Regarding the attribution of anti-military animus to the company, [the employer] argues that [the plaintiff’s] immediate supervisor, lacked the authority to investigate or terminate [the plaintiff] and, therefore, that [the supervisor’s] anti-military animus cannot be imputed to the company. But in addition to evidence of [the supervisor’s] hostile attitude, testimony by union representative . . . indicated that Assistant Superintendent Bryson had also expressed concern about [the plaintiff’s] taking “too much time off for the military.” Significantly, Bryson was responsible for the decision to dismiss [the plaintiff]. This evidence of anti-military animus from a decisionmaker, combined with the close temporal relationship between [the plaintiff’s] two-week leave for military service and his discharge was legally sufficient to support the district court’s finding that [the plaintiff] was discharged in violation of USERRA.
The Court also refused to accord res judicata status to the labor arbitration which upheld the plaintiff’s discharge for insubordination. Although courts “accord broad deference” to arbitration decisions, the Court has
previously recognized as an exception to this rule that district courts are not bound by arbitration decisions in employment discrimination cases under Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. . . . “a federal court may, in the course of trying a Title VII or section 1981 action, reconsider evidence rejected by an arbitrator in previous proceedings.” Id. at 142. In the context of an employment discrimination case, deference is due to an arbitrator’s interpretation of provisions in a collective bargaining agreement or other employment contract, but Becton cautions that an arbitrator’s decision regarding “just cause” for termination is not equivalent to the inquiry and burden-shifting framework mandated by Congress in an employment discrimination case. See id. Hence, a federal court should not consider an arbitrator’s decision binding in a discrimination suit, because to do so would “unnecessarily limit[] the plaintiff’s opportunity to vindicate his statutory and constitutional rights.” Id.
In this case, the district court considered the arbitrator’s decision, the factual dispute over whether Hance’s reporting instructions were clear, and the evidence of anti-military animus by Hance’s superiors. Because the district court was not required to consider the arbitrator’s determination as conclusive, that determination could not prevent the court from holding – correctly, we conclude – that Norfolk Southern had failed to demonstrate a valid, nondiscriminatory basis for Hance’s dismissal, as measured by the standard required under section 4311(c)(1).
Insomniacs may read the decision in full at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0224p-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.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sixth Circuit: Employer Can Be Estopped From Denying FMLA Leave to Ineligible Employee, but Only If Employee Can Show Actual Reliance on Employer
Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals again addressed the issue of whether an employer can be equitably estopped from denying FMLA to an ineligible employee (because the employer had fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite). Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc., No. 08-1806 (6th Cir. 7/8/09). Although the Court ultimately adopted a loose standard for applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel against an employer, it ultimately held that an employee -- who had been told in writing by his employer that he was eligible for FMLA leave and that his application for FMLA leave had been approved before he underwent an elective surgery -- could not benefit from the estoppel doctrine because he could not show that he actually relied upon the employer’s misrepresentations about his FMLA eligibility in that he had scheduled his surgery before his FMLA application had been approved.
In that case, the epileptic employee elected to have surgery that would decrease his chance to have seizures. He notified his employer months in advance and sought authorization for a medical leave of absence at a particular time. Although everyone seemed to assume that he would be granted a medical leave of absence, he sought definite clarification and specifically mentioned the FMLA. The employer ultimately asked him to complete an application for FMLA leave and confirmed in writing that he would be receiving FMLA leave for up to twelve weeks, his position would be held open for that period of time, that he was eligible for FMLA leave and that his FMLA application had been granted. However, when he was ready to return to work, the employer notified him that it had eliminated his position as the construction project winded down.
When the employee sued, the employer defended on the grounds that his position had been eliminated in the normal course of events (as it would have done even if he had not taken FMLA leave) and that he was not eligible for FMLA leave after all because the employer had not employed more than 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court has followed two different equitable estoppel doctrines in FMLA cases. In one – taken from ERISA cases – the plaintiff must show that the employer essentially committed fraud or bad faith by making false statements of facts with knowledge of the true state of affairs and with an intent for the employee to rely on the false statements. In the more common description of the doctrine found in the Restatement of Torts:
The Supreme Court has previously noted that, “the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its adversary’s conduct in such a manner as to change his position for the worse, and that reliance must have been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel did not know nor should it have known that its adversary’s conduct was misleading.” Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1986). The Sixth Circuit found this to be the most appropriate standard since the employer is in the best position to evaluate the employee’s eligibility and “is the cheaper cost avoider.”
Nonetheless, in what can be described as a hypertechnical reading of the employee’s affidavit, the Court concluded that the employee could not show that he actually or detrimentally relied on the employer’s misstatement about his eligibility for FMLA leave because he scheduled the surgery before submitting his FMLA application and failed to include any statement in his affidavit that he would have canceled or rescheduled his surgery if his FMLA leave had been denied. As summarized by the Court:
Although the employee argued “that because the surgery was elective, he could have rescheduled it had he known that he was not FMLA eligible. It is true in the abstract that he could have rescheduled it; but it is his burden on summary judgment to produce evidence supporting his estoppel claim, and the record must contain evidence permitting a finding that he would have.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0239p-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.
In that case, the epileptic employee elected to have surgery that would decrease his chance to have seizures. He notified his employer months in advance and sought authorization for a medical leave of absence at a particular time. Although everyone seemed to assume that he would be granted a medical leave of absence, he sought definite clarification and specifically mentioned the FMLA. The employer ultimately asked him to complete an application for FMLA leave and confirmed in writing that he would be receiving FMLA leave for up to twelve weeks, his position would be held open for that period of time, that he was eligible for FMLA leave and that his FMLA application had been granted. However, when he was ready to return to work, the employer notified him that it had eliminated his position as the construction project winded down.
When the employee sued, the employer defended on the grounds that his position had been eliminated in the normal course of events (as it would have done even if he had not taken FMLA leave) and that he was not eligible for FMLA leave after all because the employer had not employed more than 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court has followed two different equitable estoppel doctrines in FMLA cases. In one – taken from ERISA cases – the plaintiff must show that the employer essentially committed fraud or bad faith by making false statements of facts with knowledge of the true state of affairs and with an intent for the employee to rely on the false statements. In the more common description of the doctrine found in the Restatement of Torts:
If one person makes a definite misrepresentation of fact to another person having reason to believe that the other person will rely upon it and the other in reasonable reliance upon it does an act . . . the first person is not entitled
. . .
(b) to regain property or its value that the other acquired by the act, if the other in reliance upon the misrepresentation and before discovery of the truth has so changed his position that it would be unjust to deprive him of that which he thus acquired.
The Supreme Court has previously noted that, “the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its adversary’s conduct in such a manner as to change his position for the worse, and that reliance must have been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel did not know nor should it have known that its adversary’s conduct was misleading.” Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1986). The Sixth Circuit found this to be the most appropriate standard since the employer is in the best position to evaluate the employee’s eligibility and “is the cheaper cost avoider.”
Nonetheless, in what can be described as a hypertechnical reading of the employee’s affidavit, the Court concluded that the employee could not show that he actually or detrimentally relied on the employer’s misstatement about his eligibility for FMLA leave because he scheduled the surgery before submitting his FMLA application and failed to include any statement in his affidavit that he would have canceled or rescheduled his surgery if his FMLA leave had been denied. As summarized by the Court:
There is no evidence in the record to show that he “change[d] his position” in reliance on the belief that his leave would be FMLA-protected. . . . Had he relied on the erroneous representations, one would expect [the employee] to be able to point to some action or statement that indicated that his decision to have the surgery was contingent on his understanding of his FMLA status; or perhaps evidence that raises an inference of such contingency – for example, a record that he made an inquiry as to his rights, asked for written confirmation of his leave arrangement, or changed his behavior after being told he was eligible. . . . At the very least, [the employee] could have placed an affidavit in the record stating that he would have forgone the surgery but for his belief that his job status was protected by the FMLA. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). But none of this is present in the record.
If anything, the record shows that [the employee] had already decided on and scheduled the surgery by the time he was informed of his eligibility. There is no evidence of a discussion of the FMLA eligibility prior to the application for leave filed with [the employer] on September 27 – about three weeks prior to his October 15 surgery, and well after he informed the company of his planned absence. In deposition, [the employee] indicated that he knew that he would undergo the surgery about six months in advance, and told [his employer] as soon as he knew the date, “maybe three months before . . . the actual surgery.” ROA 291-92. At that time, he said “I got the okay so I will be having surgery on [October 15].” ROA 292. After his superiors asked questions about how long he planned to take off work, [the employee] organized a meeting to discuss his absence. His email preceding the meeting references his “operation coming up” and does not ask for permission to take leave, discuss his rights under the FMLA, or indicate a willingness to delay or reschedule depending on his legal status.
Although the employee argued “that because the surgery was elective, he could have rescheduled it had he known that he was not FMLA eligible. It is true in the abstract that he could have rescheduled it; but it is his burden on summary judgment to produce evidence supporting his estoppel claim, and the record must contain evidence permitting a finding that he would have.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0239p-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.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Sixth Circuit: Title VII Does NOT Protect Family and Friends of Charging Parties
This morning, a divided en banc Sixth Circuit reversed a prior panel decision rendered on March 31, 2008 in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, and held that Title VII only protects from retaliation individuals who have engaged in protected conduct (i.e., filed a Charge of Discrimination, opposed discrimination or participated in an investigation, etc.) and does NOT protect the family members and friends of individuals who have engaged in protected conduct. (The earlier decision was summarized here on April 10, 2008 at Sixth Circuit: Title VII Protects Family and Friends of Employees who File EEOC Charge).
As previously explained, the employer was alleged to have fired the plaintiff just three weeks after his fiance filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against the employer. He did not allege that he personally had engaged in any protected conduct, but rather, that his termination was in retaliation for the protected conduct of his fiance. In turn, the employer asserted that he was terminated because of his job performance.
The Court examined the anti-retaliation language in Title VII:
There was nothing in this language about protecting individuals who did not engage in any protected activity under the Act. The majority found the language clear and unambiguous and elected to defer to Congressional intent to not enlarge the protected class of individuals under the statute.
. . .
However, the court recognized the tension with the policy argument endorsed by the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), when it stated:
Nonetheless, the Court distinguished Burlington because the plaintiff in that case had engaged in protected conduct and the question presented to the court was the scope of retaliatory behavior. "We must look to what Congress actually enacted, not what we believe Congress might have passed were it confronted with the facts at bar. For the reasons we have laid out, it was not “absurd” for Congress to limit the class of persons who are entitled to sue to employees who personally opposed a practice, made a charge, assisted, or participated in an investigation. Our interpretation does not undermine the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose because retaliation is still actionable, but only in a suit by a primary
actor who engaged in protected activity and not by a passive bystander."
Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0202p-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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.
As previously explained, the employer was alleged to have fired the plaintiff just three weeks after his fiance filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against the employer. He did not allege that he personally had engaged in any protected conduct, but rather, that his termination was in retaliation for the protected conduct of his fiance. In turn, the employer asserted that he was terminated because of his job performance.
The Court examined the anti-retaliation language in Title VII:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.
There was nothing in this language about protecting individuals who did not engage in any protected activity under the Act. The majority found the language clear and unambiguous and elected to defer to Congressional intent to not enlarge the protected class of individuals under the statute.
In essence, plaintiff and the EEOC request that we become the first circuit court to hold that Title VII creates a cause of action for third-party retaliation on behalf of friends and family members who have not engaged in protected activity. However, we decline the invitation to rewrite the law.
. . .
In sum, no circuit court of appeals has held that Title VII creates a claim for third-party retaliation in circumstances where the plaintiff has not engaged personally in any protected activity. Although plaintiff and the EEOC argue that the language of § 704(a) is ambiguous and that enforcement of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, we disagree, as do the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which have soundly rejected such a cause of action.
However, the court recognized the tension with the policy argument endorsed by the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), when it stated:
We conclude that the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In the present context that means that the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Nonetheless, the Court distinguished Burlington because the plaintiff in that case had engaged in protected conduct and the question presented to the court was the scope of retaliatory behavior. "We must look to what Congress actually enacted, not what we believe Congress might have passed were it confronted with the facts at bar. For the reasons we have laid out, it was not “absurd” for Congress to limit the class of persons who are entitled to sue to employees who personally opposed a practice, made a charge, assisted, or participated in an investigation. Our interpretation does not undermine the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose because retaliation is still actionable, but only in a suit by a primary
actor who engaged in protected activity and not by a passive bystander."
Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0202p-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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sixth Circuit Revives Hostile Workplace Sexual Harassment Claim But Finds Plaintiff Failed to Utilize All Options To Report Supervisor Harassment
On Friday, the Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for a Cleveland area employer on a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim brought by an employee who had resigned four years earlier. Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 08-3337 (6th Cir. 5/22/09). During the brief four months of her employment, “she complained to her immediate supervisor about the crude and offensive language and conduct of her co-workers, but her complaints fell on deaf ears. Disgusted, she resigned” in part because of the office celebration leading up to the OSU-Miami national collegiate championship football game on January 2, 2003. The Court found that the plaintiff produced enough evidence that she was subjected to an objectively and subjectively hostile work environment even though much of the offensive conduct and comments were not directed specifically at her, but were facially offensive to most women. Moreover, the company was on notice about the offensive conduct by her co-workers because she complained to her supervisor about it and because her supervisor witnessed and participated in some of it. Nonetheless, the Court agreed that the employer would not be liable for strictly supervisory harassment allegations because there was no tangible job actions and because the plaintiff failed to utilize alternative methods of reporting the alleged harassment by her supervisor based on unsupported suspicions of retaliation.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired into an inside sales position and worked from a cubicle where employees had very little privacy, could overhear others’ conversations and see their computer monitors. The plaintiff “describes the atmosphere at the Cleveland office of CHR during her four-month tenure as being much like “a guys’ locker room” characterized by unprofessional behavior on the part of both males and females, and an environment that was hostile to women. She testified to the prevalent use of foul language by mostly male coworkers who openly and loudly referred to female customers, truck drivers, coworkers and others as bitches, whores, sluts, dykes and cunts. She testified that male and female co-workers viewed sexually explicit pictures on their computers (although the only incident she could specifically recall was a sexually explicit picture on co-worker Angela Sarris’ computer during the Christmas holidays), and that male coworkers left pornographic magazines lying open on their desks. Gallagher testified that, on several occasions, Starosto brought in nude pictures of his girlfriend in different sexual poses and shared those pictures with several of his male co-workers who occasionally brought in, and shared, pictures of their own with him. She testified that her male co-workers traded sexual jokes and engaged in graphic discussions about their sexual liaisons, fantasies and preferences in her presence on a daily basis. Gallagher also testified that some of the employees drank beer in the office in the afternoon on Fridays, that some male co-workers came in to the office on Saturdays (when branch manager Greg Quast was not there) without a shirt on, that one woman planned her entire wedding at the office, and that another planned her baby shower at the office.”
As for the offensive conduct towards the Plaintiff, she testified that she was once called a “bitch” and another time a co-worker said that the company satisfied two quotas when she was hired: the female quota and the “fat” quota. She further alleged that a co-worker “made several derogatory comments about her weight, and [another employee] once referred to [her] as a “heifer” with “milking udders,” and “moo”ed when she walked by his desk. [She] testified that on one Saturday when she was scheduled to work, three male co-workers came into the office following a session at a gym in the building next door. [One] co-worker, who was wearing only a towel and announced that he was “commando” (meaning that he was wearing no underwear) sat on [a nearby] desk, displaying his whole thigh, and talked with the others about anal sex, their enjoyment of it and how [an employee’s] girlfriend objected to it. On the next business day, [the plaintiff] complained to [her supervisor] about this incident and told him she did not want to work on Saturdays anymore.” She also described how a co-worker would repeatedly physically block her from walking down an aisle until she spoke to him.
The Company “has policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender, and prohibiting the electronic dissemination of sexually explicit materials through e-mail or the Internet. [The plaintiff] received copies of these policies on her first day of work. The sexual harassment policy requires employees to report complaints of sexual harassment to the legal department, the branch resources manager, or the branch manager. It provides names and phone numbers for the legal department and the branch resources manager. Although [she] signed an acknowledgment stating that she read the policy and agreed to comply with its terms, she testified at deposition that she did not recall reading it before signing it, that she did not keep a copy of it and that she could not recall asking anyone for a copy. The sexual harassment and email and Internet policies are also available on the company’s internal website, along with an anonymous third-party toll-free hotline and an anonymous e-mail service for reporting incidents of discrimination or inappropriate behavior.”
The Company also required employees “to sign certificates stating that they have complied with CHR’s policies during the preceding year – and that if they have any questions about those policies, to contact the Compliance Officer before signing the certificate. Although [she] testifies that the sexually offensive conduct occurred from the beginning of her employment, she signed a compliance certificate on November 25, 2002, but never contacted the Compliance Officer regarding offensive conduct. Rather, [the plaintiff] testified that she complained frequently to [her supervisor] about the unprofessional and sexually offensive workplace conduct to little or no avail. Although [her supervisor] had his own office, he seldom used it; and he usually required [her] to voice her complaints to him at his work station. Often, he would simply yell at the offending employee to stop the conduct because it was bothering [her] which, she says, subjected her only to more ridicule. Although [she] was aware of the anonymous 800 tip line, she refused to use it because some coworkers and [her supervisor] referred to the number as “the waw-waw line” and one co-worker told her not to call the line because the last person who did, lost her job.”
After the plaintiff received a job offer from a prior employer, she claims that she decided to resign on January 3, 2003. “This was the day of the National Championship football game between Ohio State University and the Miami Hurricanes. She testified that a female co-worker brought Jello shots into the office that day and that, in the early afternoon, many coworkers stopped working and started drinking. When Gallagher left, she discovered that she had a flat tire, went back into the office and asked for help changing it. Several drunk male co-workers laughed at her and when they left the building, they got into their trucks and “flipped her off” when passing her by.” She later formally submitted her letter of resignation on January 8 and began her new job on January 13, 2003.
The district court held that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to support her prima facie case of sexual harassment or discrimination under state or federal law. “First, the evidence was deemed insufficient to support a finding that the harassment Gallagher experienced was based on her sex. The court found that most of the offensive language and conduct was “indiscriminate;” i.e., was not directed at plaintiff, and was not shown to have occurred because Gallagher is a woman. Second, the harassing conduct, albeit subjectively offensive to Gallagher, was deemed not to be so objectively severe and pervasive as to have unreasonably interfered with her work performance. Third, the court concluded that [the employer] could not be held liable for offensive conduct engaged in by its employees because Gallagher failed to take advantage of several available avenues for reporting the conduct to upper management, but instead reported it only to her immediate supervisor, who she acknowledged could not handle the situation.” The Court of Appeals reversed.
The District Court relied Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 565 (6th Cir. 1999), for the proposition that the “based on sex” element makes it incumbent on [the plaintiff] to show that the offensive conduct “occurred because she is a woman.” However, that reliance was misplaced because “in Williams, the court was addressing a different question, i.e., whether harassing conduct that is not sexually explicit may nonetheless satisfy the “based on sex” requirement. . . . In other words, even non-sexual harassing conduct may be deemed to be based on sex if the plaintiff is otherwise able to show that, but for the fact of her sex, she would not have been the object of the harassment.”
“The district court, in evaluating the “based on sex” element, focused too narrowly on the motivation for the harassers’ offensive conduct rather than on the effects of the conduct on the victim-recipient.” As for the “equal opportunity harasser” defense, “a harasser whose offensive conduct afflicts both men and women is not an “equal opportunity curser” if the conduct is more offensive to women than men.”
The Court also found the trial court to have erred in determining “that the harassment was not shown to be so severe and pervasive as to interfere with Gallagher’s job performance.” The Court reiterated that the standard puts “the focus of the objective/subjective inquiry should remain on (1) whether a reasonable person would find the environment objectively hostile, and (2) whether the plaintiff subjectively found the conduct ‘severe or pervasive.’ Further, . . . this evaluation of the work environment must take into account the totality of the circumstances. “[E]ven where individual instances of sexual harassment do not on their own create a hostile environment, the accumulated effect of such incidents may result in a Title VII violation.” While the trial “court emphasized that most of the offensive conduct was not directed” at the plaintiff, which is not an irrelevant consideration, the “court appears to have ignored the fact that, due to the configuration of the Cleveland workplace, it was practically impossible for [the plaintiff] to avoid her co-workers’ offensive conduct. Whether the offensive conduct was intentionally directed specifically at [her] or not, the fact remains that she had no means of escaping her co-workers’ loud insulting language and degrading conversations; she was unavoidably exposed to it. Her complaints to co-workers and her supervisor were not only ignored, but actually tended to exacerbate the harassment.”
The Court also disagreed that the employer could not be held liable for the harassment. “Evaluating [the employer’s] liability for the offensive environment in the Cleveland office thus depends fundamentally on whether [her] hostile work
environment claims are based on co-worker harassment or supervisor harassment. [She] insists the answer is “both,” and the record supports her position.” The Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor “was present during and witnessed much of the conduct, participated in some of it, received reports from [the plaintiff] of incidents he did not witness, and through his inaction during the four-month period, ostensibly condoned it all. In other words, both co-workers and supervisor were clearly complicit in creating and maintaining the hostile work environment. This is significant.”
Notably, the district court’s analysis of employer liability appears to have been based on the implicit assumption that the case involved only supervisor harassment. If this case were strictly about supervisor harassment, the district court’s analysis would arguably be correct. Applying the law summarized above in Petrosino, it is apparent that [the supervisor’s] participation in the harassment did not ripen into any tangible employment action against [the plaintiff], such as firing or demotion.” Moreover, the plaintiff did “not challenge the facial adequacy of [the employer’s] sexual harassment policy, but maintains she reasonably tried to take advantage of it by reporting her complaints to her office manager . . . . She contends the lack of resulting corrective action demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the policy.” Of “the many means and opportunities available to [her], she employed only one. Limiting her reports of harassment to [her supervisor] alone was clearly unreasonable, the district court found, because it had become clear to [her] in her first weeks on the job that [her supervisor] was part of the problem, not the solution.
Indeed, the policy expressly provides alternative avenues for reporting harassment where an employee’s supervisor is involved in the harassment. Yet, despite her knowledge of the alternatives, [the plaintiff] did not report her concerns to any other person in management. As the district court put it, “she chose, instead, to deal with the problem by leaving the company for another, higher-paying job with her previous employer.” The plaintiff’s “decision to leave her employment with [the defendant employer] appears clearly to have been reasonable. However, her failure to take reasonable steps to ensure her employer was actually aware of the harassment and had a chance to correct it before she left undercuts her present effort to impose liability on [the employer] based on supervisory complicity in the harassment.” The Court agreed with this analysis and rejected the plaintiff’s subjective and unwarranted suspicions that she would be retaliated against if she utilized other alternatives of reporting the harassment. “An employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment.”
Nonetheless, even if her claim for supervisory harassment failed, an “employer is vicariously liable for co-worker harassment of which it knew or should have known if it failed to take appropriate remedial action, i.e., if its response manifests indifference or unreasonableness.” In this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff reported much of the offensive conduct by her co-workers and the supervisor even witnessed and participated in some of it. “The facts substantiate a finding the [supervisor] knew or should have known of the offensive conduct and of [plaintiff’s] objection to it. Yet, in the absence of evidence that this knowledge extended higher up in the chain of management, the question is whether [the supervisor’s] knowledge is properly imputed to [the employer].. As explained above, [his] knowledge alone is insufficient to warrant imposing liability on [the employer] for supervisor harassment, but liability for co-worker harassment is different.”
The parties disagreed about the effectiveness and reasonableness of the supervisor’s reaction to the plaintiff’s complaints about her co-workers. “Because a reasonable jury could find that [the employer] knew or should have known of the sexual harassment [she] experienced and yet responded with manifest indifference or unreasonably, the district court’s conclusion that the premises for employer liability are lacking is erroneous.”
Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0184p-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.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired into an inside sales position and worked from a cubicle where employees had very little privacy, could overhear others’ conversations and see their computer monitors. The plaintiff “describes the atmosphere at the Cleveland office of CHR during her four-month tenure as being much like “a guys’ locker room” characterized by unprofessional behavior on the part of both males and females, and an environment that was hostile to women. She testified to the prevalent use of foul language by mostly male coworkers who openly and loudly referred to female customers, truck drivers, coworkers and others as bitches, whores, sluts, dykes and cunts. She testified that male and female co-workers viewed sexually explicit pictures on their computers (although the only incident she could specifically recall was a sexually explicit picture on co-worker Angela Sarris’ computer during the Christmas holidays), and that male coworkers left pornographic magazines lying open on their desks. Gallagher testified that, on several occasions, Starosto brought in nude pictures of his girlfriend in different sexual poses and shared those pictures with several of his male co-workers who occasionally brought in, and shared, pictures of their own with him. She testified that her male co-workers traded sexual jokes and engaged in graphic discussions about their sexual liaisons, fantasies and preferences in her presence on a daily basis. Gallagher also testified that some of the employees drank beer in the office in the afternoon on Fridays, that some male co-workers came in to the office on Saturdays (when branch manager Greg Quast was not there) without a shirt on, that one woman planned her entire wedding at the office, and that another planned her baby shower at the office.”
As for the offensive conduct towards the Plaintiff, she testified that she was once called a “bitch” and another time a co-worker said that the company satisfied two quotas when she was hired: the female quota and the “fat” quota. She further alleged that a co-worker “made several derogatory comments about her weight, and [another employee] once referred to [her] as a “heifer” with “milking udders,” and “moo”ed when she walked by his desk. [She] testified that on one Saturday when she was scheduled to work, three male co-workers came into the office following a session at a gym in the building next door. [One] co-worker, who was wearing only a towel and announced that he was “commando” (meaning that he was wearing no underwear) sat on [a nearby] desk, displaying his whole thigh, and talked with the others about anal sex, their enjoyment of it and how [an employee’s] girlfriend objected to it. On the next business day, [the plaintiff] complained to [her supervisor] about this incident and told him she did not want to work on Saturdays anymore.” She also described how a co-worker would repeatedly physically block her from walking down an aisle until she spoke to him.
The Company “has policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender, and prohibiting the electronic dissemination of sexually explicit materials through e-mail or the Internet. [The plaintiff] received copies of these policies on her first day of work. The sexual harassment policy requires employees to report complaints of sexual harassment to the legal department, the branch resources manager, or the branch manager. It provides names and phone numbers for the legal department and the branch resources manager. Although [she] signed an acknowledgment stating that she read the policy and agreed to comply with its terms, she testified at deposition that she did not recall reading it before signing it, that she did not keep a copy of it and that she could not recall asking anyone for a copy. The sexual harassment and email and Internet policies are also available on the company’s internal website, along with an anonymous third-party toll-free hotline and an anonymous e-mail service for reporting incidents of discrimination or inappropriate behavior.”
The Company also required employees “to sign certificates stating that they have complied with CHR’s policies during the preceding year – and that if they have any questions about those policies, to contact the Compliance Officer before signing the certificate. Although [she] testifies that the sexually offensive conduct occurred from the beginning of her employment, she signed a compliance certificate on November 25, 2002, but never contacted the Compliance Officer regarding offensive conduct. Rather, [the plaintiff] testified that she complained frequently to [her supervisor] about the unprofessional and sexually offensive workplace conduct to little or no avail. Although [her supervisor] had his own office, he seldom used it; and he usually required [her] to voice her complaints to him at his work station. Often, he would simply yell at the offending employee to stop the conduct because it was bothering [her] which, she says, subjected her only to more ridicule. Although [she] was aware of the anonymous 800 tip line, she refused to use it because some coworkers and [her supervisor] referred to the number as “the waw-waw line” and one co-worker told her not to call the line because the last person who did, lost her job.”
After the plaintiff received a job offer from a prior employer, she claims that she decided to resign on January 3, 2003. “This was the day of the National Championship football game between Ohio State University and the Miami Hurricanes. She testified that a female co-worker brought Jello shots into the office that day and that, in the early afternoon, many coworkers stopped working and started drinking. When Gallagher left, she discovered that she had a flat tire, went back into the office and asked for help changing it. Several drunk male co-workers laughed at her and when they left the building, they got into their trucks and “flipped her off” when passing her by.” She later formally submitted her letter of resignation on January 8 and began her new job on January 13, 2003.
The district court held that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to support her prima facie case of sexual harassment or discrimination under state or federal law. “First, the evidence was deemed insufficient to support a finding that the harassment Gallagher experienced was based on her sex. The court found that most of the offensive language and conduct was “indiscriminate;” i.e., was not directed at plaintiff, and was not shown to have occurred because Gallagher is a woman. Second, the harassing conduct, albeit subjectively offensive to Gallagher, was deemed not to be so objectively severe and pervasive as to have unreasonably interfered with her work performance. Third, the court concluded that [the employer] could not be held liable for offensive conduct engaged in by its employees because Gallagher failed to take advantage of several available avenues for reporting the conduct to upper management, but instead reported it only to her immediate supervisor, who she acknowledged could not handle the situation.” The Court of Appeals reversed.
There were instances in the workplace when Gallagher was repeatedly called a “bitch” by a co-worker in anger, was referred to by another as a “heifer” with “milking udders,” and was taunted by a male co-worker wearing nothing but a towel around his waist when she was the only female in the office. These incidents, in which offensive conduct was directed at Gallagher, reflect sex-discriminatory animus. Yet, the record suggests that much of the other highly offensive conduct was not directed at Gallagher. Among the commonplace offensive occurrences, Gallagher complained of: co-workers’ vulgar descriptions of female customers, associates and even friends as “bitches,” “whores,” “sluts,” “dykes,” and “cunts;” co-workers’ joint ogling and discussions of obscene photographs and pornographic magazines; and co-workers’ explicit conversations about their own sexual practices and strip club exploits. Gallagher could not avoid exposure to these offensive behaviors because they occurred in close proximity to her work station, where she was required to be. Still, the offensive conduct does not appear to have been motivated by Gallagher’s presence or by the fact that she is a woman.”
The District Court relied Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 565 (6th Cir. 1999), for the proposition that the “based on sex” element makes it incumbent on [the plaintiff] to show that the offensive conduct “occurred because she is a woman.” However, that reliance was misplaced because “in Williams, the court was addressing a different question, i.e., whether harassing conduct that is not sexually explicit may nonetheless satisfy the “based on sex” requirement. . . . In other words, even non-sexual harassing conduct may be deemed to be based on sex if the plaintiff is otherwise able to show that, but for the fact of her sex, she would not have been the object of the harassment.”
Here, in contrast, most of the complained of harassment just summarized—both conduct directed at Gallagher and indiscriminate conduct—is explicitly sexual and patently degrading of women. The natural effect of exposure to such offensive conduct is embarrassment, humiliation and degradation, irrespective of the harasser’s motivation—especially and all the more so if the captive recipient of the harassment is a woman. In connection with such evidence, it is hardly necessary for Gallagher to otherwise show that the conduct evinces anti-female animus; it is obvious. Hence, even though members of both sexes were exposed to the offensive conduct in the Cleveland office, considering the nature of the patently degrading and anti-female nature of the harassment, it stands to reason that women would suffer, as a result of the exposure,greater disadvantage in the terms and conditions of their employment than men.
“The district court, in evaluating the “based on sex” element, focused too narrowly on the motivation for the harassers’ offensive conduct rather than on the effects of the conduct on the victim-recipient.” As for the “equal opportunity harasser” defense, “a harasser whose offensive conduct afflicts both men and women is not an “equal opportunity curser” if the conduct is more offensive to women than men.”
The Court also found the trial court to have erred in determining “that the harassment was not shown to be so severe and pervasive as to interfere with Gallagher’s job performance.” The Court reiterated that the standard puts “the focus of the objective/subjective inquiry should remain on (1) whether a reasonable person would find the environment objectively hostile, and (2) whether the plaintiff subjectively found the conduct ‘severe or pervasive.’ Further, . . . this evaluation of the work environment must take into account the totality of the circumstances. “[E]ven where individual instances of sexual harassment do not on their own create a hostile environment, the accumulated effect of such incidents may result in a Title VII violation.” While the trial “court emphasized that most of the offensive conduct was not directed” at the plaintiff, which is not an irrelevant consideration, the “court appears to have ignored the fact that, due to the configuration of the Cleveland workplace, it was practically impossible for [the plaintiff] to avoid her co-workers’ offensive conduct. Whether the offensive conduct was intentionally directed specifically at [her] or not, the fact remains that she had no means of escaping her co-workers’ loud insulting language and degrading conversations; she was unavoidably exposed to it. Her complaints to co-workers and her supervisor were not only ignored, but actually tended to exacerbate the harassment.”
Further, the district court erroneously insisted on a showing that the harassment was both subjectively and objectively severe and pervasive; whereas the Williams standard requires a showing that the environment is objectively hostile and the harassment subjectively severe and pervasive. The district court had no trouble concluding there was a triable issue as to whether the harassment was subjectively severe and pervasive. The next question thus should have been whether a reasonable person could have found the environment objectively hostile. Considering the totality of the circumstances as described in Gallagher’s deposition, the conclusion is inescapable that a reasonable person could have found the Cleveland office—permeated with vulgar language, demeaning conversations and images, and palpable anti-female animus—objectively hostile. The district court reached a contrary conclusion by erroneously limiting its consideration only to some instances of abusive conduct, instead of considering the workplace as a whole.
Moreover, the district court also erred in requiring evidence that [the plaintiff's] work performance suffered measurably as a result of the harassment. The court placed inordinate weight on Gallagher’s testimony that she was able to meet her daily and weekly quotas and that her work performance was rated average to above average. In finding that [the plaintiff] failed to present any evidence that the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work, the court ignored her testimony that, from day one in the Cleveland office, she was “horrified” by the loudness, constant swearing and vulgar language, and that she “left there every day crying.” Considering Gallagher’s description of the offensive conduct to which she was exposed, her reaction can hardly be dismissed as implausible, unreasonable, exaggerated or hypersensitive. Nor is it improbable that the hostility and antagonism she experienced rendered her work more difficult. In Williams, the court made it clear that a plaintiff need not prove a tangible decline in her work productivity; only “that the harassment made it more difficult to do the job.” Based on the instant record, a reasonable jury could certainly find that the complained of harassment made it more difficult for Gallagher to do her job.
The Court also disagreed that the employer could not be held liable for the harassment. “Evaluating [the employer’s] liability for the offensive environment in the Cleveland office thus depends fundamentally on whether [her] hostile work
environment claims are based on co-worker harassment or supervisor harassment. [She] insists the answer is “both,” and the record supports her position.” The Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor “was present during and witnessed much of the conduct, participated in some of it, received reports from [the plaintiff] of incidents he did not witness, and through his inaction during the four-month period, ostensibly condoned it all. In other words, both co-workers and supervisor were clearly complicit in creating and maintaining the hostile work environment. This is significant.”
Notably, the district court’s analysis of employer liability appears to have been based on the implicit assumption that the case involved only supervisor harassment. If this case were strictly about supervisor harassment, the district court’s analysis would arguably be correct. Applying the law summarized above in Petrosino, it is apparent that [the supervisor’s] participation in the harassment did not ripen into any tangible employment action against [the plaintiff], such as firing or demotion.” Moreover, the plaintiff did “not challenge the facial adequacy of [the employer’s] sexual harassment policy, but maintains she reasonably tried to take advantage of it by reporting her complaints to her office manager . . . . She contends the lack of resulting corrective action demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the policy.” Of “the many means and opportunities available to [her], she employed only one. Limiting her reports of harassment to [her supervisor] alone was clearly unreasonable, the district court found, because it had become clear to [her] in her first weeks on the job that [her supervisor] was part of the problem, not the solution.
Indeed, the policy expressly provides alternative avenues for reporting harassment where an employee’s supervisor is involved in the harassment. Yet, despite her knowledge of the alternatives, [the plaintiff] did not report her concerns to any other person in management. As the district court put it, “she chose, instead, to deal with the problem by leaving the company for another, higher-paying job with her previous employer.” The plaintiff’s “decision to leave her employment with [the defendant employer] appears clearly to have been reasonable. However, her failure to take reasonable steps to ensure her employer was actually aware of the harassment and had a chance to correct it before she left undercuts her present effort to impose liability on [the employer] based on supervisory complicity in the harassment.” The Court agreed with this analysis and rejected the plaintiff’s subjective and unwarranted suspicions that she would be retaliated against if she utilized other alternatives of reporting the harassment. “An employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment.”
Nonetheless, even if her claim for supervisory harassment failed, an “employer is vicariously liable for co-worker harassment of which it knew or should have known if it failed to take appropriate remedial action, i.e., if its response manifests indifference or unreasonableness.” In this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff reported much of the offensive conduct by her co-workers and the supervisor even witnessed and participated in some of it. “The facts substantiate a finding the [supervisor] knew or should have known of the offensive conduct and of [plaintiff’s] objection to it. Yet, in the absence of evidence that this knowledge extended higher up in the chain of management, the question is whether [the supervisor’s] knowledge is properly imputed to [the employer].. As explained above, [his] knowledge alone is insufficient to warrant imposing liability on [the employer] for supervisor harassment, but liability for co-worker harassment is different.”
An employer is deemed to have notice of harassment reported to any supervisor or department head who has been authorized—or is reasonably believed by a
complaining employee to have been authorized—to receive and respond to or forward such complaints to management.
The parties disagreed about the effectiveness and reasonableness of the supervisor’s reaction to the plaintiff’s complaints about her co-workers. “Because a reasonable jury could find that [the employer] knew or should have known of the sexual harassment [she] experienced and yet responded with manifest indifference or unreasonably, the district court’s conclusion that the premises for employer liability are lacking is erroneous.”
Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0184p-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.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Sixth Circuit: No Violation of Public Policy for Firing Employee For Bringing Weapon onto Employer’s Property.
Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer which fired an employee for keeping a concealed weapon in his car in the employer’s parking lot in violation of the employer’s policy. Plona v. UPS, No. 08-5624.
According to the court’s opinion, the employer’s policy provided: “All UPS employees are prohibited from using or possessing a firearm . . . while on UPS property or while conducting official UPS business. This includes, but is not limited to: UPS vehicles, facilities (including parking lots, customer premises, etc.) and while on duty or during personal breaks.” The plaintiff “had previously signed an acknowledgment form stating that he was aware of this policy.” After the employer contacted the local sheriff “about a package containing possible contraband,” a K-9 search was conducted of cars in the parking lot. “During the search, one of the dogs identified [the plaintiff’s] car as a vehicle to inspect. [The plaintiff] consented to the search and informed the sheriff’s deputies that he had a firearm in the vehicle. The deputies found a .22 caliber Luger pistol under the front seat and its empty ammunition magazine in the glove compartment. [The plaintiff] did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and had not registered the pistol. The deputies confiscated the weapon and reported their findings to UPS. Two UPS officials then met with [the plaintiff], who conceded that he was aware of UPS’s weapons policies and admitted that he had knowingly left the pistol in his car. The UPS officials accordingly discharged [the plaintiff], effective immediately.”
The plaintiff “subsequently filed a lawsuit against UPS in federal court, alleging wrongful discharge. He claimed that his firing was in violation of the public policy regarding firearms embodied in Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution.” The Sixth Circuit disagreed. “Although the Ohio Constitution provides a general right to bear arms, the state certainly does not have a “clear public policy” of allowing employees to possess firearms on the premises of their private employers. To the contrary, the Ohio legislature has specifically provided that employers may limit their employees’ rights to bear arms:
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.126(C)(1).” UPS was thus plainly within its rights, as codified in § 2923.126(C)(1), to prohibit its employees from possessing firearms in the parking area. Because [the plaintiff] cannot show that UPS violated a clear public policy of the state of Ohio, his wrongful-termination claim fails as a matter of law.” The Court also held that the plaintiff’s arguments concerning pretext were misplaced since no law had been violated and he was not a member of a protected class. Wanting to keep his gun away from his allegedly suicidal wife, while commendable if true, did not affect the employer’s right to terminate him for violating policy.
Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://
According to the court’s opinion, the employer’s policy provided: “All UPS employees are prohibited from using or possessing a firearm . . . while on UPS property or while conducting official UPS business. This includes, but is not limited to: UPS vehicles, facilities (including parking lots, customer premises, etc.) and while on duty or during personal breaks.” The plaintiff “had previously signed an acknowledgment form stating that he was aware of this policy.” After the employer contacted the local sheriff “about a package containing possible contraband,” a K-9 search was conducted of cars in the parking lot. “During the search, one of the dogs identified [the plaintiff’s] car as a vehicle to inspect. [The plaintiff] consented to the search and informed the sheriff’s deputies that he had a firearm in the vehicle. The deputies found a .22 caliber Luger pistol under the front seat and its empty ammunition magazine in the glove compartment. [The plaintiff] did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and had not registered the pistol. The deputies confiscated the weapon and reported their findings to UPS. Two UPS officials then met with [the plaintiff], who conceded that he was aware of UPS’s weapons policies and admitted that he had knowingly left the pistol in his car. The UPS officials accordingly discharged [the plaintiff], effective immediately.”
The plaintiff “subsequently filed a lawsuit against UPS in federal court, alleging wrongful discharge. He claimed that his firing was in violation of the public policy regarding firearms embodied in Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution.” The Sixth Circuit disagreed. “Although the Ohio Constitution provides a general right to bear arms, the state certainly does not have a “clear public policy” of allowing employees to possess firearms on the premises of their private employers. To the contrary, the Ohio legislature has specifically provided that employers may limit their employees’ rights to bear arms:
Nothing in this section shall negate or restrict a rule, policy, or practice of a private employer that is not a private college, university, or other institution of higher education concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer.
Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.126(C)(1).” UPS was thus plainly within its rights, as codified in § 2923.126(C)(1), to prohibit its employees from possessing firearms in the parking area. Because [the plaintiff] cannot show that UPS violated a clear public policy of the state of Ohio, his wrongful-termination claim fails as a matter of law.” The Court also held that the plaintiff’s arguments concerning pretext were misplaced since no law had been violated and he was not a member of a protected class. Wanting to keep his gun away from his allegedly suicidal wife, while commendable if true, did not affect the employer’s right to terminate him for violating policy.
Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Sixth Circuit Affirms Employer’s Summary Judgment on Race and Retaliation Claims Despite Messy Termination and Possible Evidence of Pretext
Today, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered by the federal court in Columbus in favor of an employer who terminated an African-American employee three times without always following all of its written procedures because the plaintiff was unable to show that any similarly-situated white employee was treated better. Moreover, the court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s retaliation claims because there was no temporal proximity between his termination and when he filed his EEOC and OCRC Charges and no additional acts of retaliation. Gibson v. Shelly Co., No. 07-3009 (8/20/08). Nonetheless, the Court indicated that (i) it would still consider retaliation claims despite the passage of one year between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action; (ii) that the court could consider actions taken by the employer against the plaintiff outside the limitations period and (iii) that a plaintiff need not always show that similarly situated employees reported to the same supervisor if the supervisor’s role in termination decisions was minor.
Plaintiff was hired in 2003 (and in prior years) to assist with highway paving projects. As in other years, he received copies of the employer’s safety manual which provided for the Safety Committee terminating employees for one (and no more than two) serious safety violations (i.e., those which could result in serious injury or death) and for two (and no more than four) non-serious safety violations in a year. The manual also provided for conducting prompt investigations, including interviews with the violating employee, and that employees could be terminated at will (although, as a practical matter, because of union contracts, employees, such as plaintiff, could only be terminated for just cause). Employees who are terminated are not eligible for reemployment for at least one year.
Plaintiff’s first termination took place in May 2003 after he had been observed on three separate occasions driving the roller into moving traffic (which could have killed commuters) and after the employer received a sexual harassment complaint about inappropriate comments Plaintiff had made to a female co-worker. However, the decision was not made by the Safety Committee and the employer never completed its investigation of the sexual harassment complaint by, for instance, interviewing the Plaintiff. The employer also gave differing accounts of the reasons for his termination, at times citing only the safety violations and at others also referring to the sexual harassment allegations. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and the OCRC (which were dismissed in February 2004) and a union grievance (which resulted in his reinstatement and back pay almost two years later). Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit after receiving his right-to-sue letters, and was inadvertently hired in June 2004, but was terminated two days later on account of his prior termination and the failure of the arbitrator to render a decision in the union grievance. Plaintiff again filed Charges of Discrimination and Retaliation with the OCRC and EEOC, but they were dismissed in April 2005.
Honoring the arbitration decision, Plaintiff was again hired in Spring 2005, but was again fired on May 12, 2005 following two serious safety violations. In one incident, he almost ran into a co-worker with the roller, and in another, he ran the roller off the road and almost into a ditch while grabbing something out of his lunch bag. An investigation was conducted, but again, the Plaintiff was not interviewed. This time, however, the Safety Committee considered the investigation report and voted to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff again filed a Charge of Discrimination and Retaliation with the OCRC and, again, it dismissed it in February 2006. Plaintiff then filed suit.
Although the employer’s failure to follow its own procedures, shifting and inconsistent explanations for his 2003 termination and failure to interview Plaintiff during its several investigations may have constituted evidence of pretext in connection with the parties’ respective burden of proof (and entitling Plaintiff to a jury trial of his claims), the trial and appellate courts concluded that it did not need to evaluate the sufficiency of the employer’s explanation for the termination – or Plaintiff’s evidence of pretext – because Plaintiff failed to satisfy his prima facie burden of proving that he was treated differently than similarly-situated employees. In particular, the courts found that the Plaintiff failed to identify any white employees who committed two serious safety violations who were not fired.
In addition, the courts found that the plaintiff failed to show that he was terminated for filing Charges of Discrimination in May 2003 or 2004 because he was not fired until June 2004 and May 2005 – approximately a year after the Charges had been filed. While the Sixth Circuit pointed out that it has found sufficient evidence of retaliation in cases where a year had passed between the adverse employment action and the filing of the Charge, those cases also possessed other evidence of retaliation – unlike this case. “We have never suggested that a lack of temporal proximity dooms a retaliation claim. In fact, we have previously found retaliation when the termination followed the complaint by over a year. . . . However, in order to overcome a lack of temporal proximity, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence supporting the causal connection. “[W]here some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0507n-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.
Plaintiff was hired in 2003 (and in prior years) to assist with highway paving projects. As in other years, he received copies of the employer’s safety manual which provided for the Safety Committee terminating employees for one (and no more than two) serious safety violations (i.e., those which could result in serious injury or death) and for two (and no more than four) non-serious safety violations in a year. The manual also provided for conducting prompt investigations, including interviews with the violating employee, and that employees could be terminated at will (although, as a practical matter, because of union contracts, employees, such as plaintiff, could only be terminated for just cause). Employees who are terminated are not eligible for reemployment for at least one year.
Plaintiff’s first termination took place in May 2003 after he had been observed on three separate occasions driving the roller into moving traffic (which could have killed commuters) and after the employer received a sexual harassment complaint about inappropriate comments Plaintiff had made to a female co-worker. However, the decision was not made by the Safety Committee and the employer never completed its investigation of the sexual harassment complaint by, for instance, interviewing the Plaintiff. The employer also gave differing accounts of the reasons for his termination, at times citing only the safety violations and at others also referring to the sexual harassment allegations. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and the OCRC (which were dismissed in February 2004) and a union grievance (which resulted in his reinstatement and back pay almost two years later). Plaintiff did not file a lawsuit after receiving his right-to-sue letters, and was inadvertently hired in June 2004, but was terminated two days later on account of his prior termination and the failure of the arbitrator to render a decision in the union grievance. Plaintiff again filed Charges of Discrimination and Retaliation with the OCRC and EEOC, but they were dismissed in April 2005.
Honoring the arbitration decision, Plaintiff was again hired in Spring 2005, but was again fired on May 12, 2005 following two serious safety violations. In one incident, he almost ran into a co-worker with the roller, and in another, he ran the roller off the road and almost into a ditch while grabbing something out of his lunch bag. An investigation was conducted, but again, the Plaintiff was not interviewed. This time, however, the Safety Committee considered the investigation report and voted to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff again filed a Charge of Discrimination and Retaliation with the OCRC and, again, it dismissed it in February 2006. Plaintiff then filed suit.
Although the employer’s failure to follow its own procedures, shifting and inconsistent explanations for his 2003 termination and failure to interview Plaintiff during its several investigations may have constituted evidence of pretext in connection with the parties’ respective burden of proof (and entitling Plaintiff to a jury trial of his claims), the trial and appellate courts concluded that it did not need to evaluate the sufficiency of the employer’s explanation for the termination – or Plaintiff’s evidence of pretext – because Plaintiff failed to satisfy his prima facie burden of proving that he was treated differently than similarly-situated employees. In particular, the courts found that the Plaintiff failed to identify any white employees who committed two serious safety violations who were not fired.
In addition, the courts found that the plaintiff failed to show that he was terminated for filing Charges of Discrimination in May 2003 or 2004 because he was not fired until June 2004 and May 2005 – approximately a year after the Charges had been filed. While the Sixth Circuit pointed out that it has found sufficient evidence of retaliation in cases where a year had passed between the adverse employment action and the filing of the Charge, those cases also possessed other evidence of retaliation – unlike this case. “We have never suggested that a lack of temporal proximity dooms a retaliation claim. In fact, we have previously found retaliation when the termination followed the complaint by over a year. . . . However, in order to overcome a lack of temporal proximity, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence supporting the causal connection. “[W]here some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0507n-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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Sixth Circuit Enters Judgment for Employee’s Reinstatement Claim Because USERRA Trumps Employer’s Regular Return-to-Work Procedures.
Today, the Sixth Circuit issued an important decision applying USERRA, reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee whose re-employment rights had been violated. Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davison County, No. 07-5649 (8/18/08). In that case, the Sixth Circuit faulted the employer for delaying the employee’s reinstatement to his former position beyond two weeks pending completion of the employer’s regular return-to-work process and pending completion of investigations about the plaintiff’s honesty in explaining the reasons for the termination of his military service.
While the plaintiff was serving in Kuwait, he was brought up on charges for violating the Code of Military Justice for conduct unbecoming an officer in having bootleg alcohol in his quarters and sharing the alcohol with an enlisted female soldier. He was eventually permitted to resign from the military in lieu of court martial, returned home on February 1 and sought reinstatement to his former job as a police sergeant on February 28, 2005. His discharge was identified by the military as “under honorable conditions.” Before the police department would reinstate him, however, they required him to undergo its standard return-to-work process to ensure that he was mentally, temperamentally and physically fit to serve as a police officer. This included “a personal history update questionnaire, a medical examination, a computer voice stress analysis, a drug screening, and a debriefing with a Police Department psychologist. In addition, the Police Department requests that returning officers execute a medical records authorization, and for individuals returning from military duty, an authorization to obtain military records.” After the plaintiff was required to explain in writing about any disciplinary charges during his military service, investigations arose as to whether he should be disqualified from police service because of the recommended court martial and because of concerns that the plaintiff had not honestly explained the situation during the return-to-work process.
Although the plaintiff was not rehired until March 21, 2005 – almost a month after he sought reinstatement – he was not reinstated into his former position as a sergeant. Rather, he was given a desk job accepting civilian complaints pending completion of the investigations into his former military service and his honesty during the return-to-work process. Ultimately, the employer determined that the military disciplinary action would not preclude his reinstatement, but it remained concerned about his honesty in disclosing the subject. Thereupon, it was discovered that plaintiff had not submitted a complete copy of his DD-214 form memorializing his honorable discharge. Rather, the copy he had submitted had been so enlarged that the last three sections of the form – one of which indicated that he had resigned in lieu of court martial – had been deleted from the form. As this situation continued, plaintiff requested authorization to resume his off-duty security work, but was denied in light of the investigations into his honesty.
Plaintiff then filed suit alleging that his USERRA rights had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the grounds that Plaintiff had been treated the same as other police officers who took leaves of absence and could not prove any unlawful discrimination. The Sixth Circuit reversed and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee:
“For the purposes of this case, USERRA performs four key functions. First, it guarantees returning veterans a right of reemployment after military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4312. Second, it prescribes the position to which such veterans are entitled upon their return. 38 U.S.C. § 4313. Third, it prevents employers from discriminating against returning veterans on account of their military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4311. Fourth, it prevents employers from firing without cause any returning veterans within one year of reemployment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316.”
The Court found that “upon his return, he was required to request reemployment from Metro within the time frame outlined in § 4312(e) and with the documentation specified by § 4312(f). [In addition], his separation from service must have been under “honorable conditions.” 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2).
The documents which satisfy the documentation requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 4312 are identified in 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123. Among those listed is a form DD-214, which the employee provided when he sought reinstatement. But the employer argued that the employee’s DD-214 was not sufficient under USERRA, because the copy which he submitted admittedly did not include three fields at the bottom of the form — most notably one including the statement “Narrative Reason for Separation: In lieu of trial by courtmartial.” The employer also argued that the DD-214 was “void” because the failure to include all fields constituted an alteration voiding the form.
The Court held that “it would be inconsistent with the goals of USERRA to prevent [the employee] from exercising his right to reemployment because he failed to provide forthrightly information that is statutorily unnecessary to his establishing the right in the first place. First, 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123(a)(2) expressly recognizes that the types of documentation necessary to establish eligibility for reemployment may vary from case to case. The focus of USERRA is on securing rights to returning veterans, not on ensuring that any particular documentation is produced. Second, in compliance with [the employer’s] return-to-work process, [the employee] signed an authorization granting [the employer] unfettered access to all of his medical and military records, including a complete DD-214. Accordingly, we find that [the plaintiff] satisfied USERRA’s documentation requirement, and, inasmuch as [the employer] does not dispute his having satisfied the other statutory prerequisites, it is apparent that he established his right to reemployment as guaranteed by §§ 4312 and 4313. [The employer], therefore, was not permitted to delay or otherwise limit [the plaintiff’s] reemployment rights in any way; in particular, [the employer] was not permitted to limit or delay [the employee’s] reemployment by requiring him to comply with its return-to-work process. Section 4302(b) expressly states that USERRA “supersedes any . . . contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.” By applying its return-to-work process to [the plaintiff], [the employer] not only delayed his reemployment, but as we shall explain, it also limited and withheld benefits to which [the employee] was entitled under USERRA.”
“It is of no consequence here that [the employer] believes it is obligated to “ensure that each and every individual entrusted with the responsibility of being a Metropolitan Police Officer is still physically, emotionally, and temperamentally qualified to be a police officer after having been absent from the Department.” In USERRA, Congress clearly expressed its view that a returning veteran’s reemployment rights take precedence over such concerns. [The employer] does not question [the employee’s] physical qualifications; instead, it questions only whether his conduct during his military service would disqualify him from returning to service in the police department. But [the plaintiff’s] separation from military service is classified as “under honorable conditions,” which Congress has made clear suffices to qualify him for USERRA benefits, 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2). To the extent that his military service may have in fact left [the employee] unfit to carry out his duties as a police officer but is not reflected in the classification of his separation from service, USERRA would allow, after his reemployment, a “for cause” termination of that employment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316. Furthermore, Congress recognized USERRA would limit the ability of employers to rescreen returning veterans, but still chose to make this the general rule under USERRA. This is evident because, in certain circumstances, Congress altered this general rule to allow vetting of returning veterans before full rehiring. Section 4315 allows the heads of agencies listed under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) – e.g., FBI, CIA, NSA – to “prescribe procedures for ensuring that the rights under [USERRA] apply to employees of such agency.” 38 U.S.C. § 4315(a). Congress did not grant similar discretion to local police departments; therefore, [the employer’s] return-to-work process as applied to [the plaintiff] was in violation of USERRA’s reemployment provisions.” (emphasis added).
The Court also found that the lower court had erred in endorsing the City’s return-to-work process because they did not discriminate against veterans under USERRA. “First, § 4302(b) does not limit its superseding effect only to “additional prerequisites.” It supersedes any “policy, plan, [or] practice” that “reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit” provided by USERRA, “including,” but not necessarily limited to, “the establishment of additional prerequisites.” Second, [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures do constitute “additional prerequisites” for returning veterans, because the procedures are in addition to the requirements Congress specified for the exercise of USERRA’s reemployment rights. The district court apparently viewed the term “additional prerequisites” as meaning “additional to the employer’s existing prerequisites,” and concluded that [the employer’s] procedures are not discriminatory because they apply to all individuals returning to the department. But this analysis is not appropriate for a claim brought under § 4312, and the superseding effect of § 4302(b) is not so limited; [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures are indeed superseded by USERRA’s reemployment provisions.
It is important to note that [the plaintiff] was not required to make any showing of discrimination in order to sustain either of his reemployment claims. The district court incorrectly characterized part of [the plaintiff’s] reemployment claim — that part dealing with the position to which he was reinstated — as being part of his discrimination claims and therefore held that it required a showing of discrimination. . . . the Department of Labor specified that “[t]he employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 . . . , the imposition of § 4311’s discrimination requirement on a reemployment claim is not consistent with the plain language of §§ 4312 and 4313. Section 4313 states that any “person entitled to reemployment under section 4312” — which we have found [the employee] to be — “shall be promptly reemployed in a position of employment in accordance with the” order of priority outlined in § 4313(a)(2). Thus, the express terms of § 4313 make its application contingent only on the prerequisites of § 4312, none of which include a showing of discrimination.”
“At the point at which [the employee] was entitled to reemployment under §§ 4312 and 4313, [the employer] had no basis on which to question his qualifications. [the employee] had satisfied the only prerequisites to § 4313 — those specified in § 4312 — and [the employer’s] attempt to impose additional prerequisites through its return-to-work process was, as we have already explained, wholly impermissible.” The employer’s return-to-work process (and the questions about the plaintiff’s honesty which arose during that process) “cannot serve as a basis for delaying or otherwise limiting [the employee’s] right to reemployment.”
The Court found that not only did the employer fail to properly rehire the plaintiff, but it also failed to reinstate him to his former position: “Because of its return-to-work process, [the employer] took three weeks to “rehire” [the employee], and even then it did not place [the employee] in the correct position as outlined in § 4313.” The employer “cannot defeat the “prompt reemployment” guarantee of § 4313 by engaging in never-ending investigations into [the employee’s] qualifications. Indeed, courts have recognized that: It is presumed under the law that a veteran, who was qualified for his employment status upon its termination by his entry into the active military service of the United States, remains qualified to claim reemployment upon his discharge from such active military service. . . . An employer who refuses to reemploy a discharged veteran who has timely applied for reemployment has the burden of proving the veteran's disqualification for reemployment.” Because the employer failed to meet that burden, the Court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the employee on his claims that the City failed to properly reinstate him to his former position as a police sergeant within two weeks of his seeking reinstatement.
Finally, the Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint about not being authorized for off-duty security work could not be brought as a reinstatement claim, but rather should be analyzed as a discrimination claim. At that point, the court analyzed whether the plaintiff’s military service was a motivating factor for the denial of his request to perform off-duty security work. Because the trial court failed to conduct the proper analysis, the Court remanded that claim to the court for reconsideration.
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0302p-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.
While the plaintiff was serving in Kuwait, he was brought up on charges for violating the Code of Military Justice for conduct unbecoming an officer in having bootleg alcohol in his quarters and sharing the alcohol with an enlisted female soldier. He was eventually permitted to resign from the military in lieu of court martial, returned home on February 1 and sought reinstatement to his former job as a police sergeant on February 28, 2005. His discharge was identified by the military as “under honorable conditions.” Before the police department would reinstate him, however, they required him to undergo its standard return-to-work process to ensure that he was mentally, temperamentally and physically fit to serve as a police officer. This included “a personal history update questionnaire, a medical examination, a computer voice stress analysis, a drug screening, and a debriefing with a Police Department psychologist. In addition, the Police Department requests that returning officers execute a medical records authorization, and for individuals returning from military duty, an authorization to obtain military records.” After the plaintiff was required to explain in writing about any disciplinary charges during his military service, investigations arose as to whether he should be disqualified from police service because of the recommended court martial and because of concerns that the plaintiff had not honestly explained the situation during the return-to-work process.
Although the plaintiff was not rehired until March 21, 2005 – almost a month after he sought reinstatement – he was not reinstated into his former position as a sergeant. Rather, he was given a desk job accepting civilian complaints pending completion of the investigations into his former military service and his honesty during the return-to-work process. Ultimately, the employer determined that the military disciplinary action would not preclude his reinstatement, but it remained concerned about his honesty in disclosing the subject. Thereupon, it was discovered that plaintiff had not submitted a complete copy of his DD-214 form memorializing his honorable discharge. Rather, the copy he had submitted had been so enlarged that the last three sections of the form – one of which indicated that he had resigned in lieu of court martial – had been deleted from the form. As this situation continued, plaintiff requested authorization to resume his off-duty security work, but was denied in light of the investigations into his honesty.
Plaintiff then filed suit alleging that his USERRA rights had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the grounds that Plaintiff had been treated the same as other police officers who took leaves of absence and could not prove any unlawful discrimination. The Sixth Circuit reversed and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee:
“For the purposes of this case, USERRA performs four key functions. First, it guarantees returning veterans a right of reemployment after military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4312. Second, it prescribes the position to which such veterans are entitled upon their return. 38 U.S.C. § 4313. Third, it prevents employers from discriminating against returning veterans on account of their military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4311. Fourth, it prevents employers from firing without cause any returning veterans within one year of reemployment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316.”
The Court found that “upon his return, he was required to request reemployment from Metro within the time frame outlined in § 4312(e) and with the documentation specified by § 4312(f). [In addition], his separation from service must have been under “honorable conditions.” 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2).
The documents which satisfy the documentation requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 4312 are identified in 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123. Among those listed is a form DD-214, which the employee provided when he sought reinstatement. But the employer argued that the employee’s DD-214 was not sufficient under USERRA, because the copy which he submitted admittedly did not include three fields at the bottom of the form — most notably one including the statement “Narrative Reason for Separation: In lieu of trial by courtmartial.” The employer also argued that the DD-214 was “void” because the failure to include all fields constituted an alteration voiding the form.
The Court held that “it would be inconsistent with the goals of USERRA to prevent [the employee] from exercising his right to reemployment because he failed to provide forthrightly information that is statutorily unnecessary to his establishing the right in the first place. First, 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123(a)(2) expressly recognizes that the types of documentation necessary to establish eligibility for reemployment may vary from case to case. The focus of USERRA is on securing rights to returning veterans, not on ensuring that any particular documentation is produced. Second, in compliance with [the employer’s] return-to-work process, [the employee] signed an authorization granting [the employer] unfettered access to all of his medical and military records, including a complete DD-214. Accordingly, we find that [the plaintiff] satisfied USERRA’s documentation requirement, and, inasmuch as [the employer] does not dispute his having satisfied the other statutory prerequisites, it is apparent that he established his right to reemployment as guaranteed by §§ 4312 and 4313. [The employer], therefore, was not permitted to delay or otherwise limit [the plaintiff’s] reemployment rights in any way; in particular, [the employer] was not permitted to limit or delay [the employee’s] reemployment by requiring him to comply with its return-to-work process. Section 4302(b) expressly states that USERRA “supersedes any . . . contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.” By applying its return-to-work process to [the plaintiff], [the employer] not only delayed his reemployment, but as we shall explain, it also limited and withheld benefits to which [the employee] was entitled under USERRA.”
“It is of no consequence here that [the employer] believes it is obligated to “ensure that each and every individual entrusted with the responsibility of being a Metropolitan Police Officer is still physically, emotionally, and temperamentally qualified to be a police officer after having been absent from the Department.” In USERRA, Congress clearly expressed its view that a returning veteran’s reemployment rights take precedence over such concerns. [The employer] does not question [the employee’s] physical qualifications; instead, it questions only whether his conduct during his military service would disqualify him from returning to service in the police department. But [the plaintiff’s] separation from military service is classified as “under honorable conditions,” which Congress has made clear suffices to qualify him for USERRA benefits, 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2). To the extent that his military service may have in fact left [the employee] unfit to carry out his duties as a police officer but is not reflected in the classification of his separation from service, USERRA would allow, after his reemployment, a “for cause” termination of that employment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316. Furthermore, Congress recognized USERRA would limit the ability of employers to rescreen returning veterans, but still chose to make this the general rule under USERRA. This is evident because, in certain circumstances, Congress altered this general rule to allow vetting of returning veterans before full rehiring. Section 4315 allows the heads of agencies listed under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) – e.g., FBI, CIA, NSA – to “prescribe procedures for ensuring that the rights under [USERRA] apply to employees of such agency.” 38 U.S.C. § 4315(a). Congress did not grant similar discretion to local police departments; therefore, [the employer’s] return-to-work process as applied to [the plaintiff] was in violation of USERRA’s reemployment provisions.” (emphasis added).
The Court also found that the lower court had erred in endorsing the City’s return-to-work process because they did not discriminate against veterans under USERRA. “First, § 4302(b) does not limit its superseding effect only to “additional prerequisites.” It supersedes any “policy, plan, [or] practice” that “reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit” provided by USERRA, “including,” but not necessarily limited to, “the establishment of additional prerequisites.” Second, [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures do constitute “additional prerequisites” for returning veterans, because the procedures are in addition to the requirements Congress specified for the exercise of USERRA’s reemployment rights. The district court apparently viewed the term “additional prerequisites” as meaning “additional to the employer’s existing prerequisites,” and concluded that [the employer’s] procedures are not discriminatory because they apply to all individuals returning to the department. But this analysis is not appropriate for a claim brought under § 4312, and the superseding effect of § 4302(b) is not so limited; [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures are indeed superseded by USERRA’s reemployment provisions.
It is important to note that [the plaintiff] was not required to make any showing of discrimination in order to sustain either of his reemployment claims. The district court incorrectly characterized part of [the plaintiff’s] reemployment claim — that part dealing with the position to which he was reinstated — as being part of his discrimination claims and therefore held that it required a showing of discrimination. . . . the Department of Labor specified that “[t]he employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 . . . , the imposition of § 4311’s discrimination requirement on a reemployment claim is not consistent with the plain language of §§ 4312 and 4313. Section 4313 states that any “person entitled to reemployment under section 4312” — which we have found [the employee] to be — “shall be promptly reemployed in a position of employment in accordance with the” order of priority outlined in § 4313(a)(2). Thus, the express terms of § 4313 make its application contingent only on the prerequisites of § 4312, none of which include a showing of discrimination.”
“At the point at which [the employee] was entitled to reemployment under §§ 4312 and 4313, [the employer] had no basis on which to question his qualifications. [the employee] had satisfied the only prerequisites to § 4313 — those specified in § 4312 — and [the employer’s] attempt to impose additional prerequisites through its return-to-work process was, as we have already explained, wholly impermissible.” The employer’s return-to-work process (and the questions about the plaintiff’s honesty which arose during that process) “cannot serve as a basis for delaying or otherwise limiting [the employee’s] right to reemployment.”
The Court found that not only did the employer fail to properly rehire the plaintiff, but it also failed to reinstate him to his former position: “Because of its return-to-work process, [the employer] took three weeks to “rehire” [the employee], and even then it did not place [the employee] in the correct position as outlined in § 4313.” The employer “cannot defeat the “prompt reemployment” guarantee of § 4313 by engaging in never-ending investigations into [the employee’s] qualifications. Indeed, courts have recognized that: It is presumed under the law that a veteran, who was qualified for his employment status upon its termination by his entry into the active military service of the United States, remains qualified to claim reemployment upon his discharge from such active military service. . . . An employer who refuses to reemploy a discharged veteran who has timely applied for reemployment has the burden of proving the veteran's disqualification for reemployment.” Because the employer failed to meet that burden, the Court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the employee on his claims that the City failed to properly reinstate him to his former position as a police sergeant within two weeks of his seeking reinstatement.
Finally, the Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint about not being authorized for off-duty security work could not be brought as a reinstatement claim, but rather should be analyzed as a discrimination claim. At that point, the court analyzed whether the plaintiff’s military service was a motivating factor for the denial of his request to perform off-duty security work. Because the trial court failed to conduct the proper analysis, the Court remanded that claim to the court for reconsideration.
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0302p-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.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Sixth Circuit Finds Production of Irrelevant Confidential Documents During Discovery Is Not Protected Participation or Opposition Under Title VII
On Tuesday, the Sixth Circuit decided “the scope of protection that should be afforded to employees who disseminate confidential documents in violation of their employer’s privacy policy in the context of employment-related litigation.” In that case, the plaintiff had been fired after providing documents with confidential client information to the attorneys who were prosecuting a class action pay discrimination lawsuit on the behalf of her and other female employees. The Sixth Circuit held that her conduct was not protected by federal law and, therefore, the employer was permitted to discharge her for violating its confidentiality policy. Niswander v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 07-3738 (6th Cir. 6/24/08).
In Niswander, the plaintiff joined a class action pay discrimination lawsuit against her employer in 2003. She was a claims adjuster who worked from her home. She later came to believe that her employer retaliated against her for participating in that lawsuit, informed the human resources department in 2004 and filed an EEOC Charge the following year. She also informed the class action attorneys of her perceived retaliation and they indicated that they were interested in pursuing a claim on her behalf. When, in connection with the pre-trial discovery process, her attorneys asked her to provide copies of any documents “related to her employment” and “any documents you think might be even remotely helpful to our case,” she complied with their request so that they would not suffer sanctions from the court for failing to comply with the discovery process. Importantly, no lawsuit had been filed on her behalf allegation unlawful retaliation against her.
The plaintiff “admitted in her deposition that she had “no documents to support an equal pay [claim].” Instead, she sent documents that she believed were relevant to” the employer’s “alleged acts of retaliation against her. Some of the documents that Niswander sent were copies of e-mails back and forth with her supervisors related to her job performance. Other documents, however, were claim-file documents that allegedly would jog her memory regarding instances of retaliation, but that did not in and of themselves contain evidence of retaliation. In sending the documents to her lawyers, some of which included information about” her employer’s clients, the plaintiff “thought everything was confidential” and that “anything [she] produced was all between” her and the company’s attorneys. However, when her employer received copies of the confidential documents which she had given to her attorneys (to give back to her employer), it terminated her for violating its confidentiality policy.
Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . .
because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII] [the so-called “opposition clause”], or because [the employee] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII] [the so-called “participation clause”]. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).” In order to state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected activity (i.e., opposition or participation), (2) the employer knew of the employee’s protected activity, (3) the employee later suffered from an adverse employment action, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2000). In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), the Supreme Court held that “the scope of Title VII’s retaliation provision is broader than that of Title VII’s discrimination provision.”
In Niswander, the court was required to decide whether the plaintiff’s provision of the confidential records to her attorneys constituted protected participation or opposition. “’The distinction between employee activities protected by the participation clause and those protected by the opposition clause is significant because federal courts have generally granted less protection for opposition than for participation in enforcement proceedings.’ Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1312 (6th Cir. 1989). With respect to the participation clause, we have recognized that the clause’s ‘exceptionally broad protections . . . extend[] to persons who have participated in any manner in Title VII proceedings. ‘Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 582 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce the activity in question is found to be within the scope of the participation clause, the employee is generally protected from retaliation.”
“’The opposition clause, on the other hand, covers conduct such as “complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices; refusing to obey an order because the worker thinks it is unlawful under Title VII; and opposing unlawful acts by persons other than the employer—e.g., former employers, union, and co-workers.’ Johnson, 215 F.3d at 579. We have explained that ‘the only qualification that is placed upon an employee’s invocation of protection from retaliation under Title VII’s opposition clause is that the manner of [the employee’s] opposition must be reasonable.”
The court then held that the production of the confidential documents to her attorneys did not constitute protected participation because the documents were admittedly not relevant in any way to the pay discrimination claims being asserted in the pending lawsuit. “An individual’s delivery of relevant documents during the discovery process or the giving of testimony at a deposition clearly falls within the ambit of participating ‘in any manner’ in a Title VII proceeding. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the purpose of the participation clause ‘is to protect the employee who utilizes the tools provided by Congress to protect his rights’).” However, to find that the plaintiff’s actions in this case constituted protected participation in the pay discrimination lawsuit, “would provide employees with near-immunity for their actions in connection with antidiscrimination lawsuits, protecting them from disciplinary action even when they knowingly provide irrelevant, confidential information solely to jog their memory regarding instances of alleged retaliation.”
Whether the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes protected opposition conduct depends upon a balancing of her interests with that of her employer. “A balance must be achieved between the employer’s recognized, legitimate need to maintain an orderly workplace and to protect confidential business and client information, and the equally compelling need of employees to be properly safeguarded against retaliatory actions. Allowing too much protection to employees for disclosing confidential information may perversely incentivize behavior that ought not be tolerated in the workplace—namely, the surreptitious theft of confidential documents as potential future ammunition should the employee eventually feel wronged by her employer. On the other hand, inadequate protection to employees might provide employers with a legally sanctioned reason to terminate an employee in retaliation for engaging in activity that Title VII and related statutes are designed to protect.”
Prior decisions had indicated that employees did not have the right to search their employer’s confidential personnel and other files in order to obtain documents in support of their discrimination claims. In another case, the court permitted an employee to provide his attorney with documents which he “innocently” obtained because they were on the hard drive of computer assigned to him by his employer.
“Based on the analysis applied by the courts in the cases discussed above, we believe that the following factors are relevant in determining whether Niswander’s delivery of the confidential documents in question was reasonable: (1) how the documents were obtained, (2) to whom the documents were produced, (3) the content of the documents, both in terms of the need to keep the information confidential and its relevance to the employee’s claim of unlawful conduct, (4) why the documents were produced, including whether the production was in direct response to a discovery request, (5) the scope of the employer’s privacy policy, and (6) the ability of the employee to preserve the evidence in a manner that does not violate the employer’s privacy policy. These factors are designed to take into account the employer’s ‘legitimate and substantial interest in keeping its personnel records and agency documents confidential’ and yet protect the employee’s alleged ‘need for surreptitious copying and dissemination of the documents.’”
In this case, the plaintiff “could have preserved the alleged evidence of retaliation in other ways; in particular, she could have taken notes of the incidents that she believed demonstrated retaliation instead of delivering documents that contained confidential policyholder information. Producing confidential documents for the sole purpose of jogging one’s memory, when there are readily available alternatives to accomplish the same goal, does not constitute the kind of reasonable opposition activity that justifies violating a company’s privacy policy.”
“Although employees deserve protection when they make reasonable attempts to preserve evidence of illegal employment practices, including discrimination and retaliation, ‘we are loathe [sic] to provide employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence that might come in handy in later litigation.’ O’Day, 79 F.3d at 763. To hold in favor of Niswander would turn the opposition clause into ‘a license to flaunt [sic] company rules or an invitation to dishonest behavior.’ Id. at 764. So even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Niswander, we conclude that her production of the documents was not reasonable under the six factor test set forth above.”
“The only factors that arguably weigh in Niswander’s favor are factors one and two, but even those do not weigh heavily in her favor. Although she had access to the documents through her employment, Niswander did not innocently acquire the documents in the same manner as the plaintiff in Kempcke, who came across evidence of potential age discrimination in a company computer that had been issued to him. See Kempcke, 132 F.3d at 445. Rather than innocently stumbling upon evidence of illegal employment practices, Niswander specifically searched through the CIC documents that she had at her home office for the purpose of uncovering evidence of retaliation. Such behavior cannot be classified as truly innocent acquisition.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0221p-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.
In Niswander, the plaintiff joined a class action pay discrimination lawsuit against her employer in 2003. She was a claims adjuster who worked from her home. She later came to believe that her employer retaliated against her for participating in that lawsuit, informed the human resources department in 2004 and filed an EEOC Charge the following year. She also informed the class action attorneys of her perceived retaliation and they indicated that they were interested in pursuing a claim on her behalf. When, in connection with the pre-trial discovery process, her attorneys asked her to provide copies of any documents “related to her employment” and “any documents you think might be even remotely helpful to our case,” she complied with their request so that they would not suffer sanctions from the court for failing to comply with the discovery process. Importantly, no lawsuit had been filed on her behalf allegation unlawful retaliation against her.
The plaintiff “admitted in her deposition that she had “no documents to support an equal pay [claim].” Instead, she sent documents that she believed were relevant to” the employer’s “alleged acts of retaliation against her. Some of the documents that Niswander sent were copies of e-mails back and forth with her supervisors related to her job performance. Other documents, however, were claim-file documents that allegedly would jog her memory regarding instances of retaliation, but that did not in and of themselves contain evidence of retaliation. In sending the documents to her lawyers, some of which included information about” her employer’s clients, the plaintiff “thought everything was confidential” and that “anything [she] produced was all between” her and the company’s attorneys. However, when her employer received copies of the confidential documents which she had given to her attorneys (to give back to her employer), it terminated her for violating its confidentiality policy.
Title VII prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against any of his employees . . .
because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by [Title VII] [the so-called “opposition clause”], or because [the employee] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII] [the so-called “participation clause”]. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).” In order to state a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in protected activity (i.e., opposition or participation), (2) the employer knew of the employee’s protected activity, (3) the employee later suffered from an adverse employment action, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Morris v. Oldham County Fiscal Ct., 201 F.3d 784, 792 (6th Cir. 2000). In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), the Supreme Court held that “the scope of Title VII’s retaliation provision is broader than that of Title VII’s discrimination provision.”
In Niswander, the court was required to decide whether the plaintiff’s provision of the confidential records to her attorneys constituted protected participation or opposition. “’The distinction between employee activities protected by the participation clause and those protected by the opposition clause is significant because federal courts have generally granted less protection for opposition than for participation in enforcement proceedings.’ Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1312 (6th Cir. 1989). With respect to the participation clause, we have recognized that the clause’s ‘exceptionally broad protections . . . extend[] to persons who have participated in any manner in Title VII proceedings. ‘Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 582 (6th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce the activity in question is found to be within the scope of the participation clause, the employee is generally protected from retaliation.”
“’The opposition clause, on the other hand, covers conduct such as “complaining to anyone (management, unions, other employees, or newspapers) about allegedly unlawful practices; refusing to obey an order because the worker thinks it is unlawful under Title VII; and opposing unlawful acts by persons other than the employer—e.g., former employers, union, and co-workers.’ Johnson, 215 F.3d at 579. We have explained that ‘the only qualification that is placed upon an employee’s invocation of protection from retaliation under Title VII’s opposition clause is that the manner of [the employee’s] opposition must be reasonable.”
The court then held that the production of the confidential documents to her attorneys did not constitute protected participation because the documents were admittedly not relevant in any way to the pay discrimination claims being asserted in the pending lawsuit. “An individual’s delivery of relevant documents during the discovery process or the giving of testimony at a deposition clearly falls within the ambit of participating ‘in any manner’ in a Title VII proceeding. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 680 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the purpose of the participation clause ‘is to protect the employee who utilizes the tools provided by Congress to protect his rights’).” However, to find that the plaintiff’s actions in this case constituted protected participation in the pay discrimination lawsuit, “would provide employees with near-immunity for their actions in connection with antidiscrimination lawsuits, protecting them from disciplinary action even when they knowingly provide irrelevant, confidential information solely to jog their memory regarding instances of alleged retaliation.”
Whether the plaintiff’s conduct constitutes protected opposition conduct depends upon a balancing of her interests with that of her employer. “A balance must be achieved between the employer’s recognized, legitimate need to maintain an orderly workplace and to protect confidential business and client information, and the equally compelling need of employees to be properly safeguarded against retaliatory actions. Allowing too much protection to employees for disclosing confidential information may perversely incentivize behavior that ought not be tolerated in the workplace—namely, the surreptitious theft of confidential documents as potential future ammunition should the employee eventually feel wronged by her employer. On the other hand, inadequate protection to employees might provide employers with a legally sanctioned reason to terminate an employee in retaliation for engaging in activity that Title VII and related statutes are designed to protect.”
Prior decisions had indicated that employees did not have the right to search their employer’s confidential personnel and other files in order to obtain documents in support of their discrimination claims. In another case, the court permitted an employee to provide his attorney with documents which he “innocently” obtained because they were on the hard drive of computer assigned to him by his employer.
“Based on the analysis applied by the courts in the cases discussed above, we believe that the following factors are relevant in determining whether Niswander’s delivery of the confidential documents in question was reasonable: (1) how the documents were obtained, (2) to whom the documents were produced, (3) the content of the documents, both in terms of the need to keep the information confidential and its relevance to the employee’s claim of unlawful conduct, (4) why the documents were produced, including whether the production was in direct response to a discovery request, (5) the scope of the employer’s privacy policy, and (6) the ability of the employee to preserve the evidence in a manner that does not violate the employer’s privacy policy. These factors are designed to take into account the employer’s ‘legitimate and substantial interest in keeping its personnel records and agency documents confidential’ and yet protect the employee’s alleged ‘need for surreptitious copying and dissemination of the documents.’”
In this case, the plaintiff “could have preserved the alleged evidence of retaliation in other ways; in particular, she could have taken notes of the incidents that she believed demonstrated retaliation instead of delivering documents that contained confidential policyholder information. Producing confidential documents for the sole purpose of jogging one’s memory, when there are readily available alternatives to accomplish the same goal, does not constitute the kind of reasonable opposition activity that justifies violating a company’s privacy policy.”
“Although employees deserve protection when they make reasonable attempts to preserve evidence of illegal employment practices, including discrimination and retaliation, ‘we are loathe [sic] to provide employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence that might come in handy in later litigation.’ O’Day, 79 F.3d at 763. To hold in favor of Niswander would turn the opposition clause into ‘a license to flaunt [sic] company rules or an invitation to dishonest behavior.’ Id. at 764. So even after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Niswander, we conclude that her production of the documents was not reasonable under the six factor test set forth above.”
“The only factors that arguably weigh in Niswander’s favor are factors one and two, but even those do not weigh heavily in her favor. Although she had access to the documents through her employment, Niswander did not innocently acquire the documents in the same manner as the plaintiff in Kempcke, who came across evidence of potential age discrimination in a company computer that had been issued to him. See Kempcke, 132 F.3d at 445. Rather than innocently stumbling upon evidence of illegal employment practices, Niswander specifically searched through the CIC documents that she had at her home office for the purpose of uncovering evidence of retaliation. Such behavior cannot be classified as truly innocent acquisition.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0221p-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.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Sixth Circuit: Title VII Protects Family and Friends of Employees who File EEOC Charge.
[Editors' Note: This decision was reversed by the Sixth Circuit en banc on June 5, 2009.]
On March 31, 2008, the a divided Sixth Circuit recognized associational claims for retaliation after an employer fired the fiancé of an employee about three weeks after it received notice of her EEOC Charge. Thompson v. North Am. Stainless LP, No. 07-5040 (6th Cir. 3/31/08).
“According to the complaint, Regalado filed a charge with the EEOC in September 2002, alleging that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender. On February 13, 2003, the EEOC notified [the employer] of Regalado’s charge. Slightly more than three weeks later, on March 7, 2003, the [employer] terminated [the] employment of” Thompson, Regaldo’s fiancé. “Thompson alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for his then-fiancée’s EEOC charge, while [the employer] contends that performance-based reasons supported the plaintiff’s termination.” The employer successfully argued to the trial court on summary judgment that it was not a violation of Title VII to terminate Thompson on account of Regalado’s EEOC Charge.
The Sixth Circuit found the public policy of Title VII supported recognizing a cause of action under these circumstances. ““The anti-retaliation provision seeks to secure [a non-discriminatory workplace] by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act's basic guarantees.” Clearly, Regalado would have been deterred from filing her EEOC Charge if she had known that it could result in the termination of her fiancé.
The dissent argued that the Court should leave it to Congress to amend Title VII to include within the scope of the anti-retaliation provisions individuals other than the employee who filed the EEOC Charge.
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0129p-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.
On March 31, 2008, the a divided Sixth Circuit recognized associational claims for retaliation after an employer fired the fiancé of an employee about three weeks after it received notice of her EEOC Charge. Thompson v. North Am. Stainless LP, No. 07-5040 (6th Cir. 3/31/08).
“According to the complaint, Regalado filed a charge with the EEOC in September 2002, alleging that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender. On February 13, 2003, the EEOC notified [the employer] of Regalado’s charge. Slightly more than three weeks later, on March 7, 2003, the [employer] terminated [the] employment of” Thompson, Regaldo’s fiancé. “Thompson alleges that he was terminated in retaliation for his then-fiancée’s EEOC charge, while [the employer] contends that performance-based reasons supported the plaintiff’s termination.” The employer successfully argued to the trial court on summary judgment that it was not a violation of Title VII to terminate Thompson on account of Regalado’s EEOC Charge.
The Sixth Circuit found the public policy of Title VII supported recognizing a cause of action under these circumstances. ““The anti-retaliation provision seeks to secure [a non-discriminatory workplace] by preventing an employer from interfering (through retaliation) with an employee's efforts to secure or advance enforcement of the Act's basic guarantees.” Clearly, Regalado would have been deterred from filing her EEOC Charge if she had known that it could result in the termination of her fiancé.
The dissent argued that the Court should leave it to Congress to amend Title VII to include within the scope of the anti-retaliation provisions individuals other than the employee who filed the EEOC Charge.
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0129p-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.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sixth Circuit: Employers Can Now Be Liable for Off-Duty, Off-Site Retaliation by Co-Workers.
Yesterday, in Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No., 07-3235 (6th Cir. 2/19/08), a unanimous Sixth Circuit Court reinstated the co-worker retaliation claims of one plaintiff and affirmed the denial of a similar claims by a non-complaining witness to the harassment. This case is significant because it is the first time the Sixth Circuit has recognized an employer's liability for retaliation by a co-worker. In addition, even though the most significant retaliatory acts took place after working hours and off the company's property, the employer was faulted for not conducting a more thorough investigation.
In Hawkins, four women complained of sexual harassment by the same nefarious serial sexual harasser, who then allegedly retaliated against one of them and a witness by, among other things, slashing their tires at their home and in the company parking lot, scratching their cars, threatening to kill them, setting the car on fire of one of the women, and, burning down the home of the non-complaining witness. After the first sexual harassment complaint in 1993, the defendant employers fired the harasser, but he was reinstated following a union grievance arbitration. Apparently thinking that it would never be rid of the harasser following that arbitration, the employer failed to take significant action when they continued to receive complaints from female employees about the harasser’s lewd comments and touching. Rather, the employer generally responded by transferring the women to other production lines. After receiving additional complaints about more harassment and violent retaliation, the employer in July 2003 again fired the harasser, who lost his union grievance in arbitration. The following month, the harasser killed his girlfriend and committed suicide.
The Court noted that it had never previously recognized a claim for co-worker retaliation under Title VII. Indeed, the District Court had dismissed the retaliation claims on summary judgment on that basis. However, the Court recognized that a majority of the federal circuit courts to have addressed the issue determined that “Title VII protects against co-worker retaliatory harassment that is known to but not restrained by the employer.” Therefore, an employer can be liable for co-worker retaliation” if its response manifests indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.”
In particular, the Sixth Circuit held that “an employer will be liable for the co-worker’s actions if:
(1) the co-worker’s retaliatory conduct is sufficiently severe so as to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or support a charge of discrimination;
(2) supervisors or members of management have actual or constructive knowledge of the co-worker’s retaliatory behavior; AND
(3) supervisors or members of management have condoned, tolerated, or encouraged the acts of retaliation, or have responded to the plaintiff’s complaints so inadequately that the response manifests indifference or unreasonableness under the circumstances."
The Court had no difficulty in finding liability in one case. In that situation, the employer never conducted an investigation because the retaliation (i.e., torching the victim’s car in driveway of her home) took place off company property and after working hours, but the employer nonetheless suspected the allegation of violence was true. The woman’s manager even told the Licking County Prosecutor's Office during the police investigation that the harasser had insinuated to him that he started the fire and that he was personally afraid of him and would not participate in the investigation. Another senior member of management had heard rumors that the harasser set the fire and that the victim believed the fire was set by the harasser. More importantly, the harasser had admitted to three co-workers that he set the fire. Although the employer was unaware of the admissions, this evidence created an inference “that [the harasser’s] threatening behavior and violent acts of retaliation were common knowledge to both coworkers and supervisors . . . and might have been substantiated by a more complete investigation.” “The [employer] never bothered to investigate the incident, monitor [the harasser], or create a safe environment for harassment complaints. A jury could find that, given what management knew about the fire, the [employer] had an obligation to investigate the incident.” This is one of the only cases by a federal court to fault an employer for not conducting a more complete investigation.
The Court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliation claim by the non-complaining witness even though the harasser had poured gasoline down her basement and set fire to her house after he was fired. The Court found the employer’s response to her concerns of retaliation were sufficient: The employer fired the harasser, coordinated with law enforcement to have the harasser monitored, hired a security guard to follow him and offered the victim the protection of a security guard – which she refused.
Insomniacs may read the decision in full at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0081p-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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)