Ohio Modifies Ohio Civil Rights Act and Shortens Limitations Periods

 

What a long strange trip it has been.  Yesterday, Governor DeWine signed H.B. 352 into law.  While it is a scaled down version of what passed the Senate before Christmas, it addresses long-standing concerns with Ohio employment discrimination legal procedures and makes them more consistent and often still more generous than exist under federal law. Among other things, it generally shortens the limitations period for 4112 claims and some federal statutory claims to two years, requires exhaustion of remedies, incorporates specific federal defenses, and makes damages subject to tort cap limits, etc.  It still retains the right of employees to bring certain age discrimination and injunctive relief claims directly in court.

First, it shortens the limitations period for claims under O.R.C. § 4112, and federal claims under §§1981a, 1983 and 1985 to two years (from the existing six years), which is still twice as long as the federal limitations period under Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA, etc.  (The limitations periods for those federal statutes vary from state to state because they “borrow” the analogous state limitations period).  The limitations period begins to run from the date when “the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice was committed.”  This period will be tolled for Chapter 4112 claims as long as a Charge is pending at the OCRC, except that if the Charge was not filed until less than 60 days before the limitations period was about to lapse (i.e., on day 670), then the tolling will last another 60 days after the Charge is no longer pending at the OCRC.

Second, similar to federal law and with a few exceptions, it requires employees to first file a Charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, before filing a lawsuit.   The time period for filing a Charge is the same as for filing a lawsuit: two years.   Employees may still request a right to sue letter from the OCRC prior to the conclusion of any OCRC investigation, but the OCRC may not issue the right to sue unless the Charge has been pending at least 60 days.

Third, with certain exceptions, employees cannot file suit unless they have a Right to Sue letter, have waited at least 45 days after requesting a RTS letter and 60 days since filing a Charge, or have received a letter where the OCRC found probable cause of discrimination to have occurred.   These conditions do not apply if the employee is only seeking injunctive relief or if the employee filed a timely charge with both the OCRC and EEOC and the EEOC has issued a right to sue letter (or if filing a lawsuit for age discrimination under §4112.14).   But, if the employee initially sought only injunctive relief from a court and later amends his or her complaint to include a claim for damages, the employee must have filed a timely OCRC Charge and comply with the right-to-sue letter requirements.   

Fourth, as with federal law, it eliminates individual liability of managers and supervisors under the statute.  The legislation notes that it intends to overrule the Ohio Supreme Court’s Genaro decision and to instead follow long-standing federal law on this issue.  

Fourth, it explicitly adopts the federal standard and affirmative defense from Faragher, for sexual harassment claims. 

Sixth, it makes verdicts for Chapter 4112 claims subject to the tort caps for non-economic damages.  

Seventh, it makes Chapter 4112 the sole and exclusive remedy for employment discrimination, which is similar to federal law.  In other words, there cannot be a common law wrongful discharge claims for violation of public policy against employment discrimination.

Finally, while it retains under §4112.14 the existing right of employees not subject to an arbitration agreement to file suit for age discrimination claims seeking only reinstatement, back pay, costs and attorney’s fees and the existing election of remedies, it added a few wrinkles.   The employee must still elect remedies (i.e., bring this direct action without being able to sue for compensatory or punitive damages or being required to file an OCRC Charge).   These direct actions are still subject to the new two year statute of limitations as described above.   Like other 4112 claims, that limitations period may be tolled if the employee filed a Charge with the OCRC making the same allegations. 

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

Sixth Circuit: No EPA Violation to Equalize Salesman’s Compensation to Match Female Without Pre-Existing EPA Violation

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment where a terminated male salesman alleged that the employer had violated the Equal Pay Act when it lowered his compensation to equal that of a female colleague. Schleicher v. Preferred Solutions, Inc., No. 15-1716 (6^th Cir. 8-2-16).  Under the EPA, an employer is not permitted to reduce an employee’s compensation in order to come into compliance with the Act.   However, the Court concluded that the employer had not violated the EPA by paying him substantially more than his female colleague because she voluntarily chose to be paid a salary and rejected the option to be paid on a purely contingency basis as he negotiated for himself.   Therefore, when his compensation was later reduced to match her compensation plan, the employer did not violate the EPA in doing so.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired after being introduced to the defendant’s president by the female colleague (who formerly worked with him).  While the female colleague was a vice-president, she and the plaintiff were the only salespeople in the healthcare IT market for the defendant company.  The plaintiff wanted to be paid exclusively a percentage of a profit pool based on the profits generated by the healthcare IT market, but the female colleague found that to be too risky and wanted to receive a half of his percentage plus a guaranteed salary.  No one knew who would end up being paid more at the time.  However, their division became extremely profitable and the plaintiff ended up being paid almost $700K more than her over a four year period.  Nonetheless, she never requested to modify her compensation structure.

In the meantime, his workplace conduct and refusal to follow direction created friction between him and the president.  There were also disputes as to who was more responsible for making that division as profitable as it was. The plaintiff alleged that the president made derogatory comments about his gender, suggesting at one point that he would be happier working with other men.  In May 2013, the president changed his compensation structure to match his female colleagues and then, after finding him insubordinate in December, terminated his employment.

The Court assumed that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case of an EPA violation by paying him almost $700k more over four years than his female colleague who was performing the same job.  However, it agreed that the defendant had carried its heavy burden of proving its affirmative defense that the compensation difference was based on a factor other than sex.

The Court found that the female colleague’s decision to take a less-risky compensation plan with a guaranteed salary was a legitimate factor other than sex for the difference in their compensation.  It rejected the plaintiff’s argument that this was a valid defense for the first year or two, but that it became a statutory violation when the compensation difference persisted for two more years without the female colleague being given the option of changing her compensation.    The Court seemed reluctant to characterize a legal decision to an illegal one simply with the passage of time, particularly when the female colleague testified that there was never a time that she wanted or requested to be paid on a purely contingency basis.   There was nothing about the plaintiff’s or colleague’s gender which played a factor in the employer’s decision to pay them with different compensation plans while performing the same work.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the employer’s explanation was pretextual.  His evidence that there were discriminatory comments directed at him as a man hardly demonstrates why he was paid more because he was a man. 

Because it does not violate the EPA to reduce an employee’s salary if it is not done to remedy an EPA violation, reducing the plaintiff’s compensation to what his female colleague was being paid did not violate the EPA.

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 be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of USERRA Claim Where Plaintiff Was Employed Under One-Year Contract Without Renewal Term

Yesterday, a divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a hospital employer’s summary judgment on a surgeon’s USERRA claim on the grounds that the surgeon’s one-year employment contract which could be terminated without cause upon 90 days’ notice constituted “brief, non-recurrent employment” with “no reasonable expectation” that it would “continue indefinitely or for a significant period” under USERRA’s re-employment exception and therefore did not require the hospital to reinstate him following his reservist deployment to Iraq and Kuwait.  Slusher v. Shelbyville Hospital Corp., No. 15-5256 (6^th Cir. 10-26-15).  The Court’s opinion was also influenced by the fact that the hospital had been searching for a permanent orthopedic surgeon before hiring the plaintiff, that plaintiff had been offered and declined that job, that the plaintiff’s one-year contract did not contain an automatic renewal term and that his employment was terminated under the terms of his contract once the hospital recruited and hired a permanent orthopedic surgeon.  The majority also found that the plaintiff could not show that he had been discriminated against on account of his military service under that factual situation.  Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to military pay under the Hospital’s policy.

According to the Court’s majority opinion, the hospital had been attempting to hire an orthopedic surgeon since 2010.  In the interim, it relied on temporary surgeons to fill its needs.  It hired the plaintiff on 30-day contracts, which were renewed several times beginning in July 2010.  The plaintiff lived out of state and could not initially persuade his wife to relocate. The hospital offered the plaintiff a permanent job as its orthopedic surgeon, but he declined the position.  Instead, he accepted a one-year contract commencing in January 2011.  The contract provided that it could be terminated on 90-days’ notice or immediately upon paying the plaintiff for 90 days in lieu of notice.  It did not contain a provision for automatic renewal or extension.   The hospital continued to search for a permanent surgeon and in April was contacted by the candidate that it eventually hired.   Like the plaintiff, he was also a military reservist.  The following month, the plaintiff received his deployment notice and was subsequently informed that the hospital was considering a candidate.  The hospital offered the candidate a three-year contract later that month and the plaintiff was deployed to Kuwait in early June.  The following month, the plaintiff received notice that his contract would be terminated in 90 days (October 26) because the hospital had hired the candidate to begin on October 1. The plaintiff’s deployment ended and he returned to work at the hospital until his employment was terminated on October 26.  He later brought suit under USERRA on the grounds that he was denied re-employment and was discriminated against on account of his military service.

In granting (and affirming) summary judgment, the courts found that the plaintiff was not entitled to re-employment rights under 38 U.S.C. §4312(d)(1)(C), which provides in relevant part that:

(d)(1) An employer is not required to reemploy a person under this chapter if—

 . . .

 (C) the employment from which the person leaves to serve in the uniformed services is for a brief, nonrecurrent period and there is no reasonable expectation that such employment will continue indefinitely or for a significant period.

The employer bears the burden of proving its entitlement to this exception.  The majority found that that this burden was satisfied in this case:

As far as [the plaintiff, the CEO and the Hospital] would have been concerned, the employment from which [the plaintiff] left to serve in the uniformed services was for at most a year; the parties were bound by an at-will one-year contract that did not provide for any renewal or extension. Moreover, [the Hospital and its CEO] were actively seeking to hire a permanent orthopedic surgeon at the time [the plaintiff] notified his employer of his impending deployment. [The plaintiff] was aware that [the Hospital] was interested in finding a permanent orthopedic surgeon because it offered the position to him and he declined it.

That [the plaintiff’s] contract was for one year and did not provide for renewal or extension plainly means that his employment was for a “nonrecurrent period” and that he could not have had a “reasonable expectation” that his employment would “continue indefinitely.” Thus, whether the § 4312(d)(1)(C) exception applied to [his] employment turns on whether it was “brief” and whether [he] had a “reasonable expectation” that it would continue “for a significant period.”

[The plaintiff] cannot be said to have had a reasonable expectation that his employment would continue “for a significant period.” [He] was aware that [the Hospital] was interested in finding a permanent orthopedic surgeon because it offered the position to him and he declined it, and he would have understood that his at-will contract (including a clause allowing [it] to terminate the agreement with no notice in exchange for 90 days’ pay) allowed [it] to promptly dismiss him upon finding a permanent replacement. Therefore, the relevant question is not whether the remainder of [his] one-year contract was “a significant period,” because in these circumstances [he] could not have reasonably expected to finish the one-year term. Rather, the relevant question is: How long did [he] reasonably expect his employment to continue, and was that amount of time a “significant period”? Given [his] situation, he could have reasonably expected his employment to continue for significantly less than a year, potentially ending in a matter of weeks or months if [it] could secure a permanent orthopedic surgeon. The Act does not define “significant period” as used in § 4312, see 38 U.S.C. § 4303, but any remaining employment term likely measured in weeks or months falls outside the bounds of a “significant period.” In the context of employment duration, a significant period is one that would provide an employee with some semblance of security or offer the ability to engage in long-term planning. [He] did not find himself in that position. Practically speaking, he had a temporary job ending as soon as a suitable replacement could be secured. [He] could not have reasonably expected his employment with [the Hospital] to continue for a significant period.

Finally, then, is the question of whether the employment from which [the plaintiff] left to serve in the uniformed services was for a “brief” period. The Act does not provide a definition of “brief” as used in § 4312, see 38 U.S.C. § 4303, but comments to the final rules governing the Act state that a three-month position would be considered “brief,” 70 Fed. Reg. 75246-01, 75249-50 (Dec. 19, 2005).  At the other end of the spectrum, one federal court has persuasively held that a four-year employment term is not “brief.” . . . 

 . . . we do not decide whether a one-year employment term is necessarily brief. Rather, we hold that [the plaintiff’s] employment term was brief because both parties would have contemplated that it would last up to one year but most likely less. Once more, it bears emphasizing that [the Hospital] was seeking a permanent orthopedic surgeon, and was capable of terminating [his] contract at any time because of the at-will clauses it contained. An employment term of this particular nature — a one-year at-will contract likely to be terminated early — is brief.   

Recognizing the impact of its decision if it were to imply that prevalent at-will contracts were presumptively “brief,” the Court was careful to restrict the implication of its decision:  

We are careful to note, however, that the at-will nature of a contract should not always weigh so heavily in determining whether an employment term is “brief” for purposes of § 4312.  . . . if at-will clauses are afforded too much weight the § 4312(d)(1)(C) exception could swallow the general reemployment rule of § 4312(a). But in this case, [his] at-will contract is properly given substantial weight because all parties would have contemplated that [the Hospital] actually intended to invoke the at-will clause as soon as it practically could in order to facilitate hiring a permanent orthopedic surgeon.

The Court’s majority also found that the discrimination claim under §4311 was properly dismissed, albeit on different grounds than the trial court (which had found discrimination claims could only be maintained if the plaintiff also had a right to reinstatement under §4312):

the district court’s understanding that § 4311 discrimination protections apply only upon reemployment that complies with the Act’s other requirements is dubious because it would reward employers for failing to compliantly reemploy returning military members by shielding those employers from § 4311 discrimination claims. It is highly doubtful that the drafters of the Act intended noncompliance with some of its provisions to trigger immunity from other provisions. More likely, if reemployment is a prerequisite to a § 4311 claim, it would either be mandatory reemployment under § 4312, or reemployment in the sense that the employee has returned to work even though § 4312 did not guarantee him or her reemployment.

The Court noted that prior precedent had not addressed contrary regulations and that many circuits had found §4311 discrimination claims to be wholly independent of §4312.

In any event, like the trial court had noted in passing, the plaintiff failed to make his prima facie case of showing that his military service was a substantial or motivating factor in his termination or to disprove the employer’s affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the plaintiff’s protected military service.

Plaintiff has failed to set forth any evidence of a discriminatory motive for his discharge. The fact that he was given the termination agreement during his deployment is not evidence of discrimination against his military service in light of the record evidence as a whole, which demonstrates that Plaintiff was aware at the time he signed his employment contract and prior to his deployment that [Heritage] was seeking a permanent orthopedic surgeon. Additionally, the fact that Plaintiff’s replacement, Dr.Mosley, was also a service member who could be called to active duty undermines any argument Plaintiff could make regarding [the Hospital]’s alleged discrimination against service members.

  . . . . 

[The Hospital] sought to replace [the plaintiff] because it wanted a permanent orthopedic surgeon, not because of [his] military service. Its motivation to find a permanent employee is reflected both in that it offered [him] the permanent position and that it continued looking for his replacement before it knew of his deployment. That [the Hospital] hired [the plaintiff] in the first place and then replaced him with Mosley further demonstrates that it did not disfavor military physicians.

The majority also affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims because the contract had been terminated under its own terms and the plaintiff was not entitled to military pay (i.e., a salary differential) under the Hospital’s policy because the policy – like USERRA itself  -- contained a specific exception for when the employee is employed for brief, non-recurrent periods with no reasonable expectation of continued employment for an indefinite or significant period. 

The dissent would have found disputed issues of fact based on the fact that the Hospital could have opted to extend or continue the one-year contract indefinitely as it had previously extended or renewed his 30-day employment contracts for several months before offering him the one-year contract.  In that event, the hospital would not have qualified for the re-employment exception.   Further, there was evidence that the Hospital’s CEO had stated to the new orthopedic surgeon that the plaintiff’s sudden deployment “had really messed things up” and that he had already confirmed that the candidate would not be re-deployed before offering him the job.  Therefore, evidence existed that his military service had motivated the hospital to replace him.

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 be changed or 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.

Ohio Appeals Court Reverses Employer’s Summary Judgment on Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Claim

Last week, a unanimous Butler County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a sexual harassment and retaliation claim brought by a former grocery store employee.  Ellis v. Jungle Jim's Market, Inc., 2015-Ohio-4226.   The court found that there were factual disputes which prevented judgment on the employer’s defenses even though it did a lot correctly after learning of the alleged harassment.  In particular, the Court found there was enough evidence to show that the employer did not sufficiently prevent or remedy harassment because its management had not been trained about harassment or workplace investigations, it failed to obtain written statements from all witnesses in a timely fashion and its anti-harassment policy did not specifically address informal and verbal reports of harassment.  A jury could also find that the employer retaliated against the plaintiff for filing her OCRC Charge by immediately transferring her to a lower-skilled bagging position at the same rate of pay purportedly in order to protect her because it had not transferred her when she earlier complained about harassment and had not transferred or suspended the harassing employee.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired as a bagger and was subsequently promoted into the seafood department.  She had been given the employer’s sexual harassment policy, which directed her to bring concerns to her supervisor, her manager or to a certain employee (who had previously died) who chaired the store’s investigation committee.  About a month after her promotion in February 2013, she claimed that her supervisor subjected her on a daily basis to inappropriate sexual comments and suggestions, many of which were graphic and gross.   Although she regularly objected to his conduct and suffered emotional and physical distress from it, she did not report it to management because he told her that he was just kidding and implicitly threatened her when he said that he knew that she liked her job.

Another employee reported the alleged harassment of the plaintiff to the assistant store manager, who then reported it to the store manager (who now chaired the store’s investigation committee).  After speaking with the plaintiff, the store managers interviewed her supervisor and two other employees (who did not corroborate the plaintiff’s allegations).  They did not interview all of the department employees or obtain written statements from the department employees.  Nonetheless, they issued a disciplinary action on May 5 directing the supervisor to cease any sexual comments under penalty of immediate termination.  The plaintiff was instructed to report any further problems to the store manager and she declined the opportunity to transfer out of the department.  Her working hours were changed so that she would no longer work with her supervisor.

There was conflicting evidence about whether the inappropriate comments continued.  The plaintiff at one point testified that he only whispered about her to other employees.  She claimed, however, that he retaliated against her by denying her time off, etc.  She did not immediately bring these issues to management even though they regularly walked through her department and checked in with her in order to ensure that she was suffering no further harassment.  Nonetheless, the plaintiff filed an OCRC Charge on May 28 alleging sexual harassment.  She was almost immediately transferred back to bagging without any reduction in pay and declined the owner’s offer to return her to the seafood department.  She subsequently injured her knee and was medically restricted to a sitting position.  Accordingly, the store gave her its only light duty position as the store greeter.  However, she resigned because she felt that she had been put in that position in order to ridicule her.

The plaintiff filed suit in November.  The following May, the store finally interviewed the rest of the seafood department employees almost a year after its first investigation and received further corroboration of the sexual harassment and that it continued after the plaintiff had been transferred out of the department.

Unlike the trial court, the Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that her supervisor created a hostile working environment with his daily sexual comments and suggestions because his conduct could be found by a jury to be sufficiently severe and pervasive enough to alter the terms and conditions of employment.  The Court also found that the alleged harassment was also objectively and subjectively hostile to a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position.  Evidence about her failure to complain, the testimony of co-workers that they never witnessed the alleged harassment and the fact that she accepted a ride home from the harasser only affected the weight of the employer’s defense and not whether the plaintiff could prevail at trial.

Unlike the trial court, the Court also found that there was sufficient evidence to hold the employer vicariously liable for the harassment.   First, it found that there remained issues of material fact about whether the employer could raise the “no tangible employment action” defense.  The plaintiff could not show that her harassing supervisor had taken any tangible actions because her transfers, etc. had been taken by upper store management.  Nonetheless, the employer was not entitled to summary judgment on the defense because it could not show that it took sufficient steps to prevent and remedy harassment.   In particular, its policy did not explicitly provide for informal or verbal complaints.   There were also issues as to whether the employer actively implemented the policy or trained supervisors or staff about it because it had not been updated following the death of the investigations committee chair and none of the managers had received training about harassment or how to conduct investigations. Second, the employer did not interview all of the departmental employees identified by the plaintiff in her interview or obtain written statements from any departmental employees until after the plaintiff filed her OCRC Charge.   The Court also faulted the employer for leaving the plaintiff in the department, only periodically touching base with her thereafter and not training the harasser about how his conduct had been objectionable.

As for her retaliation claim, the trial court had found that the transfer back to a bagging position at the same rate of pay was lateral and therefore, not materially adverse.  The Court of Appeals found this to be a disputed factual issue because a bagger’s diminished responsibility might have deterred a reasonable person from filing an OCRC Charge.  Further, the plaintiff could show a causal connection between her transfer and her protected activity because she was transferred almost immediately (or within a few days) after the employer learned that she had filed her OCRC Charge.  It also found a factual dispute as to whether the employer’s legitimate business reason for transferring her – to protect her from further sexual harassment – was pretextual because it had not transferred her earlier even though she had allegedly complained about continued harassment.  A jury could reasonably find that she had been transferred in retaliation for filing her OCRC Charge because the harasser could have been transferred or suspended instead.

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 be changed or 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.

A Hodgepodge of Activity in February

There have been a few interesting decisions within the past month in the employment context, but none of them are earth-shattering (unless you are facing a factually similar situation in your workplace).   The NLRB once again dinged a non-union employer for terminating an HR employee for discussing confidential salary information with co-workers because the employer failed to show she was a statutory supervisor and employees have a right to discuss wage information.  After she declined reinstatement, the employer offered “to make the former employee whole by paying her backpay, 401(k) contributions, medical expenses and interest in the total amount of $107,000, to revise its policy to delete the prohibition on employees of discussing their salaries, and to post a Board Notice describing these actions.”  Of course, whether this decision survives is an open question since the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled last month that President Obama lacked the authority to make three recess appointments to the NLRB on January 4, 2012 and, without those recess appointments, the NLRB lacks a quorum to vote.  (Yes, here we go again).  The NLRB announced it intended to appeal the decision in that particular case and essentially otherwise ignore the decision while conducting business as usual until the Supreme Court tells it otherwise.  The Sixth Circuit also issued a few interesting decisions.

In one case, Quinn v. Griffith, No. 12-1465 (6^th Cir. 2-21-13) the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict holding an employer liable for a sexually hostile work environment created by the manager in a two-person office and the imposition of punitive damages.  The employee apparently set up a hidden camera in the office to substantiate her allegations after the employer’s internal investigation concluded that it could not substantiate her allegations. The trial court refused to permit testimony by the employer’s lip-reading expert to rebut what the jury saw on the videotape.  Even without lost wages, the plaintiff was awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages.   (Attorney fees for a prevailing plaintiff were not discussed in the opinion).  The matter was remanded for the trial court to clarify or modify the allocation of damages among the individual and corporate defendant and among the state and federal claims.  The Court had no difficulty in rejecting the employer’s argument that it should not be held liable for the manager’s conduct because it failed to preserve the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense in its answer to the plaintiff’s complaint or in its summary judgment motion.  Moreover, the employer failed to present any evidence of how it had exercised reasonable care to prevent and remedy the harassment.   (Obviously, this is difficult when it failed to distribute a sexual harassment policy, but not impossible according to the Court).   The same could be said of its argument that it could not be liable for punitive damages.  “An employer may avoid liability by showing that it engaged in good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII, which is most often shown by effective implementation of an anti-harassment policy.”

The Sixth Circuit has also heard and rejected a few appeals involving firefighters suing the City of Columbus.   Yesterday’s decision in Arnold v. City of Columbus likewise found no evidence of race discrimination.  This case involved a series of external and internal investigations over a few years into the conduct of the inspections section/fire protection bureau of the fire department.  Employees complained, in particular, about how the internal investigations were conducted and alleged that they were treated differently than white employees in terms of the presence of union officers in interviews, whether certain interviews were tape recorded and whether they could object to the presence of union officers in interviews, etc.   Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were not treated differently on account of their race.   In the Fullen case, the Court upheld disciplinary action when a plaintiff refused to be interviewed in the presence of a union representative.

 

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.

Franklin County Court of Appeals Finds Possible Hostile Work Environment Drove Plaintiff From Workplace, But Denies Disability Wrongful Discharge Claim Based on Subsequent Medical Leave of Absence

Yesterday, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s summary judgment on a sexual harassment claim, but affirmed dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim. Camp v. Star Leasing Co., 2012-Ohio-3650. In that case, the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that her male boss regularly demeaned her, but was not similarly hostile to male employees. Only one of his comments was sex-specific and none of it was related to any arguable sexual attraction. The Court also rejected the employer’s affirmative defense. However, the Court upheld her termination after she requested four additional months of medical leave for depression and anxiety following the completion of her FMLA leave on the grounds that her episodic flare-up of mental symptoms did not qualify as a disability or entitle her to additional leave as a reasonable accommodation.

The Court’s opinion contained a number examples of the condescending and degrading treatment which the plaintiff alleged she endured over a five-year period. One of them was described:

[He] treated her in a degrading and humiliating manner throughout the time he acted as her supervisor. [She] testified to multiple examples of this treatment. First, [she] stated that [he] required her to stop whatever she was doing, turn her chair around to face him, put her hands in her lap, and look him in the eye whenever he spoke to her. One time, when [she] did not respond fast enough to [his] presence, [he] twirled her chair around and yelled, "I want eye contact. I want eye contact. Right here. Right here. Look me in the eyes." . . . . While yelling, [he] pointed at [her] face and then at his eyes. [He] did not require male employees to stop what they were doing, put their hands in their laps, and look him in the eye when he spoke with them.

He allegedly also used offensive language when he spoke with her, unlike the male employees. He would only meet with male sales representatives, but not female ones (although he would occasionally make comments about being sexually attracted to them). He permitted male employees to bring Playboy magazines to work, where she would be required to see them.

The plaintiff complained to upper management that she felt discriminated against on account of her sex, but no formal investigation was ever conducted. After a number of years, the plaintiff’s mental health suffered and she took a leave of absence upon her doctor’s advice. After exhausting her FMLA leave, she requested four additional months, but was denied and terminated on account of the nature of her position and inability to temporarily replace her. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on all of her claims.

The Court of Appeals found that she had provided enough evidence (from her own experience and that of other female employees) to demonstrate a hostile work environment. She experienced the hostile conduct on daily basis, making it sufficiently pervasive. While the employer attempted to defend her manager on the grounds that he was equally rude to everyone, her denial of ever seeing him similarly denigrate male employees was sufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury to resolve. She was able to show that it affected her ability to work in making her increasingly anxious and depressed, finally requiring significant medical treatment.

The employer attempted to argue that it was entitled to an affirmative defense because she failed to sufficiently utilized internal procedures concerning workplace harassment. It first argued that she could not show that she suffered a material job action in that she had always received raises and favorable performance evaluations. However, the Court pointed out that she was not required to prove the existence of a tangible job action to recover for a hostile work environment; that was an element of the employer’s affirmative defense. Moreover, the plaintiff had utilized the employer’s policy and complained about discriminatory treatment. While she did not utilized the word “harassment,” she sufficiently described his demeaning treatment of her. The employer did not conduct any investigation and concluded based on cursory inquiries that she simply had a personality conflict with her boss. When the employer argued that she had failed to submit any written complaints about her boss, the Court pointed out that the employer’s policy did not contain any such requirement.

Finally, the Court affirmed dismissal of her wrongful discharge claim. She claimed that she was fired on account of her mental disability when the employer refused to provide an accommodation of four months of additional medical leave. The Court determined that a four month episode of depression and anxiety was insufficiently severe or enduring to substantially limit a major life activity or constitute a disability. Therefore, she was not entitled to any reasonable accommodation or additional leave of absence following the conclusion of her FMLA leave.

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

EEOC Proposes New ADEA Rule to Address “Reasonable Factor Other Than Age”

Last week, the EEOC began soliciting comments on a proposed rule defining the “reasonable factor other than age” defense available to employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Both the ADEA and Title VII contain a “business necessity” defense, but only the ADEA also has a defense for RFOA. Interestingly, the Equal Pay Act also has a defense for “factor other than sex,” but does not limit the defense to “reasonable” factors. In addition, even though Congress narrowed the “business necessity” defense in Title VII in 1991 following the Wards Cove Packing v. Atonia, 490 U.S. 692 (1989) decision, it did not similarly amend the ADEA (probably because there had been an open question whether disparate impact liability even existed before 2005). The EEOC concluded that a new rule was necessary following the Supreme Court decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), which found that the scope of an employer’s potential “disparate-impact liability under the ADEA is narrower than under Title VII'' because of the additional RFOA defense. In particular, the Court found that the employer could legitimately adopt a pay plan which did not benefit older employees to the same extent as younger employees if the employer had a reasonable basis – such as recruitment and retention of employees -- for doing so which was not based on the age of the employees. Moreover, the Supreme Court also held that employers bear both the burden of production and persuasion under the RFOA affirmative defense. Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab, 128 S. Ct. 2395 (2008).

The new rule will be located at 29 CFR §1625.7(b) and will provide as follows:

Whether a differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age (``RFOA'') must be decided on the basis of all the particular facts and circumstances surrounding each individual situation.
(1) Reasonable. A reasonable factor is one that is objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a reasonable employer (i.e., a prudent employer mindful of its responsibilities under the ADEA) under like circumstances. To establish the RFOA defense, an employer must show that the employment practice was both reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer. Factors relevant to determining whether an employment practice is reasonable include but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Whether the employment practice and the manner of its implementation are common business practices;
(ii) The extent to which the factor is related to the employer's stated business goal;
(iii) The extent to which the employer took steps to define the factor accurately and to apply the factor fairly and accurately (e.g., training, guidance, instruction of managers);
(iv) The extent to which the employer took steps to assess the adverse impact of its employment practice on older workers;
(v) The severity of the harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the degree of injury and the numbers of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took preventive or corrective steps to minimize the severity of the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps; and
(vi) Whether other options were available and the reasons the employer selected the option it did.\1\
------

\1\ This does not mean that an employer must adopt an employment practice that has the least severe impact on members of the protected age group. ``Unlike the business necessity test, which asks whether there are other ways for the employer to achieve its goals that do not result in a disparate impact on a protected class,
the reasonableness inquiry includes no such requirement.'' Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 243 (2005). Instead, this simply means that the availability of other options is one of the factors relevant to whether the practice was a reasonable one. ``If the actor can advance or protect his interest as adequately by other conduct which involves less risk of harm to others, the risk contained in his conduct is clearly unreasonable.'' Restatement (Second) of Torts 292, cmt. c (1965).
-------------------------------------------------------

(2) Factors Other Than Age. When an employment practice has a significant disparate impact on older individuals, the RFOA defense applies only if the practice is not based on age. In the typical disparate impact case, the practice is based on an objective non-age factor and the only question is whether the practice is reasonable. When disparate impact results from giving supervisors unchecked discretion to engage in subjective decision making, however, the impact may, in fact, be based on age because the supervisors to whom decision making was delegated may have acted on the bases of conscious or unconscious age-based stereotypes. Factors relevant to determining whether a factor is ``other than age'' include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) The extent to which the employer gave supervisors unchecked discretion to assess employees subjectively;
(ii) The extent to which supervisors were asked to evaluate employees based on factors known to be subject to age-based stereotypes; and
(iii) The extent to which supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factors and avoid discrimination.

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

Sixth Circuit: Judgment for Employer is Affirmed on Sexual Harassment Claim When Investigation and Termination Was Handled Properly.

This morning, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a hospitality industry employer on a sexual harassment claim when the employer properly investigated and terminated the employee. Balding-Margolis v. Cleveland Arcade d/b/a Hyatt Regency Cleveland, No. 09-3017 (11/10/09). Retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was part of the panel which issued the decision. The plaintiff was a long-time waitress who was found to have violated many cash-handling procedures over a period of time, including rules against increasing the amount of her tip on a customer’s credit card payment. After she was fired, she alleged that, among other things, she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and treated differently on account of her age and sex.

According to the Court’s decision, when the plaintiff was hired, she was given copies of several policies, including the employer’s sexual harassment policy (which permitted her to bring concerns to her manager, the Director of Human Resources and a national toll-free hotline), and that she could be immediately terminated for violating cash-handling procedures. Her employment was also governed by a bargaining agreement with the UNITE HERE union. “[T]he Cash Handling Rules generally prohibited an employee from altering a guest check; required that an employee follow proper procedures; and prohibited an employee from handling checks, cash, and credit cards in an improper manner. The restrictions on altering a guest check included prohibitions on changing the tip amount or closing out a check that differed in any way from the customer’s signed receipt.” Notwithstanding these rules, and the fact that she was a trainer who oriented new employees about these rules, “[i]n October 2005, she was issued a warning when two guests left the restaurant without providing a valid form of payment. In January 2006, [plaintiff] received another warning because of a large cash variance following her shift. In May 2006, [plaintiff] received a third warning—a “Final Written Warning”—for adding an additional eighteen-percent gratuity without the customer’s permission.”

A year later, her supervisor noticed that her credit card tips equaled almost 1/3 of her receipts for the day (not including cash tips). “The high tips-to-sales ratio was suspicious and caused [her supervisor] to audit [plaintiff’s] transactions that day. [He] concluded that there were problems with one-third of [her] sales, including receipts for discounted meals that lacked the required discount coupons; ten checks without a signed copy of the room charge, credit card, or other documentation; and two unsigned receipts with listed tips that exceeded the actual food-sales amount. [He] conducted an audit of the two workers with whom [she] had been serving that day but found no similar discrepancies.” He then went back and audited the prior few weeks and involved the Controller and Human Resources Manager, confirmed that there consistently were similar violations and decided to terminate her employment. She “was given the opportunity to explain the various discrepancies, but she failed to do so.”

During the termination meeting, [plaintiff] made general complaints regarding the way that [her supervisor] had administered the staff, but she made no complaints of sex- or age-based discrimination or harassment. Following her termination, Hyatt continued auditing [her] receipts for five dates in April 2007, revealing additional discrepancies. Because [she] had alleged during her termination meeting that [her supervisor] was attempting to get her fired and that he had papered her file and/or stolen the supporting documentation that she needed to explain the discrepancies, Hyatt conducted an audit of [her] transactions during a two week period prior to [his] employment at Hyatt. That audit revealed similar cash-handling problems. Hyatt also conducted an audit of all the checks closed out by the servers on April 25, May 1 through 4, and May 8, 2007, and found that none of them had discrepancies or cash-handling violations similar to [her] discrepancies.

Plaintiff then filed an EEOC Charge and union grievance alleging sexual harassment and age discrimination. Hyatt conducted an investigation, interviewed co-workers and did not find any basis for her claims. She then filed suit in federal court.

The Court concluded that she could not satisfy a prima facie case of age discrimination because she could not show that she was replaced by a substantially younger employee or that younger employees were treated more favorably. A bartender was not her “replacement” because he had already worked in the restaurant part-time before her termination. A “person is not replaced when another employee is assigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties in addition to other duties, or when the work is redistributed among other existing employees already performing related work. A person is replaced only when another employee is hired or reassigned to perform the plaintiff’s duties.”

She also could not show that others were treated more favorably because their alleged violations were not the same.

She claims that the younger employees’ practice of marrying alcohol and their admitted but unproven failure to turn in receipts were sufficiently serious to merit comparison to the disciplinary violation that led to her termination—the cash-handling-policy violation and misappropriation of funds. . . . This is not the case. Marrying alcohol may be a violation of Ohio law, but [she] never engaged in the practice and was never disciplined for not participating. The fact that [she] was terminated for engaging in an illegal practice does not automatically make marrying alcohol and [her] infraction comparable. Misappropriation of funds and marrying alcohol are different circumstances involving distinguishable conduct.

Plaintiff also brought pay discrimination claims because trainers at non-Cleveland Hyatt hotels were paid more than her... However, she presented no evidence that she was paid less than co-workers outside of her protected class in Cleveland “‘for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. . . . . [She] concedes that she was the only server-trainer in Cleveland, and she has presented no evidence that other non-protected employees held “substantially equal” jobs and were paid more. . . . . . [She] further concedes that those employees who were paid a higher rate had greater seniority and were being paid pursuant to the provisions of the CBA.” She also presented no evidence about the age or sex of the non-Cleveland trainers, even if they could be considered as part of the same establishment.

The Court found that the plaintiff presented a prima facie case of sexual harassment, especially based on two allegations of improper physical contact and her supervisor’s daily bragging about his sexual life:

(1) The Director of Sexual “once invited [her] to lie down in his room;”
(2) The Security Director once told [her] that she was attractive;”
(3) The Director Security “once hit [her] on the buttocks and “untied [her] apron, which was tied in the back;”
(4) Her supervisor “once commented that he had a large penis;”
(5) Her supervisor “once told [her] that he had sex with one of her customers, [her] to provide a free meal to that customer, and then “put his hands . . . against the wall and dry humped it or did a pelvic thrust against it,” stating “I did her, I did her,”;
(6) Her supervisor “had once asked a female line cook to do the “boobie dance,” which involved putting the cook’s “hands underneath her chest” and moving them “up and down” and shaking “her hips;”
(7) Her supervisor “repeatedly bragged to [her] about the day that he had sexual intercourse with a fellow Hyatt server and [her] female co-worker at the Hyatt;”
(8) Her supervisor “repeatedly talked to [her] ‘about a sexual relationship he had with a former co-worker, how that co-worker was pregnant, how [he] needed to mail that pregnant woman a check so that the woman can pay for an abortion,” and how he wanted [plaintiff] to put [his] check in the mail.”

In light of her evidence of sexual harassment, Hyatt would be liable for the supervisor’s actions unless it could show by a preponderance of the evidence “that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior” and that [the plaintiff] ‘unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.’ . . . Generally, an employer satisfies the first part of this two-part standard when it has promulgated and enforced a sexual harassment policy.”

The Court found that Hyatt had an effective sexual-harassment reporting policy and that the plaintiff failed “to take advantage of Hyatt’s corrective policy was unreasonable.”

Although her post-deposition affidavit states that she complained to Hyatt management verbally over thirty times, [her] deposition testimony indicates that she never complained to anyone concerning [her supervisor’s] harassment and discriminatory conduct other than to [her supervisor] himself. Her deposition testimony further establishes that she never complained to anyone about [the Security Director’s] conduct. [Plaintiff] failed to make these complaints notwithstanding that she testified that she was aware of the open-door policy, the complaint procedure, and the fact that if her immediate supervisor failed to act on her complaint she could go elsewhere. [She] clearly took advantage of the complaint process with regard to a variety of run-of-the-mill matters, but she failed to take advantage of the policies when it mattered most.

Likewise, the Court rejected her retaliation claim. She failed to testify in her deposition about any instances of complaining to management about any sex or age discrimination, even though she complained in writing and verbally about a number of other matters. In order to invoke the protections of federal or state law, an employee needs to be direct in complaining about discrimination:

a vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice. An employee may not invoke the protections of the Act by making a vague charge of discrimination. Otherwise, every adverse employment decision by an employer would be subject to challenge under either state or federal civil rights legislation simply by an employee inserting a charge of discrimination.

In any event, the Court also concluded that even if the plaintiff could satisfy her prima facie case, the employer had shown a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for firing her.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0732n-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.

Supreme Court: Fear of Race Discrimination Lawsuit Cannot Justify Reverse or Other Intentional Race Discrimination if Employer Has Valid Defenses.

In a highly anticipated decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court today reversed a summary judgment decision previously approved by the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Ricci v. DeStafano, No. 07-1428. The lower courts had upheld the City of New Haven, Connecticut in failing to certify the results of a civil service promotional examination for firefighters on the grounds that the City was concerned that it would be sued for disparate impact race discrimination if it promoted any firefighters based on the test because mostly white and Hispanic firefighters passed the exam and only 9 of the 27 African-American firefighters passed. Because the City’s decision was based entirely on the race of the successful and unsuccessful test takers, it necessarily implicated the intentional discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Right Act. The Court held that “race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute.” The employer cannot justify its actions based solely on the fact that the potential plaintiffs can prove only a prima facie case of discrimination; rather, the employer must also consider its potential defenses before making a race-conscious decision. Because that “strong evidence” was lacking in this case, the Court not only reversed summary judgment for the City it directed that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability.

The Background

According to the Court’s decision, the City Charter required the City to promote firefighters into officer positions based on how they ranked on promotional examinations. The examination consisted of both written and oral portions and required a certain amount of prior job experience and education. The experienced consulting firm hired to design the test analyzed the jobs at issue by interviewing, questioning and observing the incumbent officers.

At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates. . . .

For each test, IOS compiled a list of training manuals, Department procedures, and other materials to use as sources for the test questions. IOS presented the proposed sources to the New Haven fire chief and assistant fire chief for their approval. Then, using the approved sources, IOS drafted a multiple-choice test for each position. [Each test consisted of 100 questions and] was written below a 10th grade reading level. After IOS prepared the tests, the City opened a 3-month study period. It gave candidates a list that identified the source material for the questions, including the specific chapters from which the questions were taken.

IOS developed the oral examinations as well. These concentrated on job skills and abilities. Using the job analysis information, IOS wrote hypothetical situations to test incident-command skills, firefighting tactics, interpersonal skills, leadership, and management ability, among other things. Candidates would be presented with these hypotheticals and asked to respond before a panel of three assessors.

All of the assessors were from outside Connecticut and received special training. “Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members” (i.e., one white, one Hispanic and one black).

Following the November 2003 examinations, 34 out of the 77 (or 44%) of the candidates passed the lieutenant examination: 25 out of 43 [58%] whites, 6 out of 19 [ 31.5%] blacks, and 3 out of 15 [20%] Hispanics. Because there were 8 vacancies at the time of the examination, the top ten scores were eligible for immediate promotion. All of them were white.

As for the captain exam, 22 of the 41 (or 54%) of the candidates passed: 16 out of 25 whites (64%), 3 out of 8 blacks (37.5%), and 3 out of 8 Hispanics (37.5%). Because there were seven captain vacancies at the time of the examination, 9 candidates were eligible to be considered for an immediate promotion to captain—7 whites and 2 Hispanics.

Although the City had a contractual right to a technical report from the consultant analyzing the test results, instead the City immediately objected to the facial racial disparity in the results. The City told the Civil Service Board that the test results had a disparate impact. Some firefighters – without knowing how they scored – advocated certifying the test results because they had spent a lot of money buying studying materials and a lot of time studying and a new test would take years to develop and administer. Others objected on the grounds that the study materials were too long and expensive. Some suggested that a validation study be conducted.

The Board ultimately requested the consultant to explain how the test had been developed and conducted and also requested an outside panel of experts to review the situation. One of those experts was a competitor of the consultant and he opined that the test results were not surprising, criticized the lack of local input into the test questions and suggested the use of an assessment center which required the candidates to demonstrate their knowledge instead of merely answering questions on a test or in an interview. Another witness – who was black – from the Department of Homeland Security said that the test reviewed relevant and job related information. He suggested that the disparity was somewhat related to the fact that more white candidates took the exam than black candidates. The final “expert” was a college professor who know nothing about firefighting, but who opined that “regardless of what kind of written test we give in this country . . . we can just about predict how many people will pass who are members of under-represented groups. And your data are not that inconsistent with what predictions would say were the case.” Although the results may have been influenced by the fact that the job analysis surveys were initially completed mostly by white firefighters, “no matter what test the City had administered, it would have revealed “a disparity between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites,” particularly on a written test.” The Board deadlocked on whether to certify the test results, which meant that the results were not certified.

The Litigation

The plaintiffs – 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter – filed suit under §§ 1983 and 1985 and under Title VII against the City and other defendants. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and it was affirmed on appeal. The Second Circuit then considered whether to reconsider the decision en banc, but voted 7-6 against reconsideration.

The issue as framed by the Supreme Court:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified . . . Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race.

While the lower courts found that intentional discrimination could be excused in order to potentially avoid disparate impact liability under Title VII, the Court did not think that this was necessarily so. The plaintiffs argued that it should never be a defense to intentional racial discrimination that the employer was attempting to avoid unintentional discrimination. The defense argued that good faith efforts to avoid unintentional disparate impact should excuse intentional race discrimination. The court found both parties’ arguments to be simplistic and unrealistic. It rejected racial quotas or employer practices seeking a preferred racial balance. It also refused to prefer the disparate treatment provisions of Title VII over the disparate impact provisions.

If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates’ race, §2000e–2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates—absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision. Restricting an employer’s ability to discard test results (and thereby discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of their race) also is in keeping with Title VII’s express protection of bona fide promotional examinations.
. . .
We consider, therefore, whether the purpose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination. Our task is to provide guidance to employers and courts for situations when these two prohibitions could be in conflict absent a rule to reconcile them. In providing this guidance our decision must be consistent with the important purpose of Title VII—that the workplace be an environment free of discrimination, where race is not a barrier to opportunity.

In reaching a compromise, the Court considered decisions in other areas where it had permitted intentional discrimination. “The Court has held that certain government actions to remedy past racial discrimination—actions that are themselves based on race—are constitutional only where there is a “‘strong basis in evidence’” that the remedial actions were necessary.”

Applying the strong-basis-in-evidence standard to Title VII gives effect to both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions, allowing violations of one in the name of compliance with the other only in certain, narrow circumstances. The standard leaves ample room for employers’ voluntary compliance efforts, which are essential to the statutory scheme and to Congress’s efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination. . . . And the standard appropriately constrains employers’ discretion in making race-based decisions: It limits that discretion to cases in which there is a strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability, but it is not so restrictive that it allows employers to act only when there is a provable, actual violation.

In this case, the City defended its actions on the grounds that the test results had a disparate impact on a racial class (i.e., a neutral practice has a statistically disproportionate affect on a particular group). However, the Court pointed out that the disparate statistics constituted only a prima facie case and that the employer could have defended the results by showing that the test was job related and consistent with business necessity. At that point, the plaintiffs would have had to show that “the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs.” In this case, there was no dispute that the group opposing the test results could have met a prima facie case and there was overwhelming evidence that the City could have met its burden of showing the job-related/business necessity defense. There was, however, a question about whether a reasonable alternative existed. The Court rejected challenges that weighing the written and oral portions of the exam differently might have produced different results or that utilizing an assessment center would have been available to the City at the time or produced a different result.

The problem for respondents is that a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability—essentially, a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity, . . . and nothing more—is far from a strong basis in evidence that the City would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the results. That is because the City could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs but that the City refused to adopt. §2000e–2(k)(1)(A), (C). We conclude there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects.
. . .
On the record before us, there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results. In other words, there is no evidence —let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.

The Court did not address the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection arguments and did

not hold that meeting the strong-basis-in-evidence standard would satisfy the Equal Protection Clause in a future case. . . . Nor do we question an employer’s affirmative efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the process by which promotions will be made. But once that process has been established and employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race. Doing so, absent a strong basis in evidence of an impermissible disparate impact, amounts to the sort of racial preference

While employers may consider how to make its employment testing and processes more fair, “under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://http://Ricci.

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

Sixth Circuit Revives 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.

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.