Sixth Circuit Rejects Conclusory Allegations in Complaint of Racial and Retaliation Discrimination and Harassment

 Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation claim against a university. Ogbonna-McGruder v. Austin Peay State University, No. 23-5557 (6^th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024).   First, the Court found that discrete acts of discrimination rarely constitute a hostile work environment claim.  Second, it found that four acts over more than 30 months were not sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to constitute harassment.  Third, her retaliatory harassment claims failed for the same reasons, even if the burden of proving retaliation is lower than discrimination.  Fourth, her discrimination claims failed because she failed to allege that they were motivated by her race or that she was treated differently than anyone who was similarly situated from her. “[O]ur circuit has repeatedly held that a retaliatory hostile work environment claim must include evidence that the harassment was severe or pervasive.”

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff taught university classes for more than a decade when the university decided to divide her department.  She was unhappy with a number of decisions made about her reassignment, including her classes, her performance evaluations and the location of her office, etc.  When she appealed some of these decisions, she was told that a decision had been wrong, but denied that they were not racially motivated.  She filed an EEOC Charge and later filed suit for discrimination, harassment and retaliation.  The trial court dismissed her complaint for failure to state an actionable claim.

The Court agreed that the plaintiff had failed to sufficiently allege severe or pervasive harassment based on a number of employment actions taken against her over a 30 month period:

First, the district court correctly found that the allegations of discrete acts of discrimination could not be characterized as part of the hostile work environment claim. The Supreme Court has explained that under Title VII, a plaintiff may bring a claim alleging that either (1) an employer engaged in “discrete discriminatory acts” such as “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire”; or (2) the employer’s “repeated conduct” created a hostile work environment. . . . Because the two claims are “different in kind,” we have consistently held that allegations of discrete acts may be alleged as separate claims, and as such “cannot properly be characterized as part of a continuing hostile work environment.” . . .

 . . . . Her allegations that she was denied the opportunity to draft a grant proposal and teach summer courses, received low evaluations, was replaced by a white adjunct professor, and was reassigned to teach public management courses represent discrete acts that could perhaps support separate claims of discrimination or retaliation under Title VII.

 . . .

But even viewing those allegations [of four incidents] as a whole, [Plalintiff] did not sufficiently allege facts from which we may infer that the harassment she experienced was severe or pervasive. Courts consider the totality of circumstances in determining the severity and pervasiveness of alleged harassment, including “the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it [was] physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interfere[d] with an employee’s performance.”  . . . Notably, the alleged harassment must be both objectively and subjectively severe and pervasive to be actionable. Id. at 21–22. Allegations of “simple teasing, . . . offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)” do not suffice. . ..

             . . . As an initial matter, those events occurred over a period of approximately two and a half years—that is too infrequent to demonstrate that her workplace was “permeated with” ridicule and insult. . . . And defendants’ comments about her teaching abilities and qualifications, while undoubtedly offensive, are not sufficiently serious to constitute severe harassment.  . . .  Moreover, she did not allege that the harassment was physically threatening. Her conclusory assertions that defendants’ actions “unreasonably interfered with [her] work performance,” without alleging supporting factual allegations, is insufficient for purposes of a motion to dismiss.  . . . Because she failed to plausibly allege severe or pervasive harassment, the district court did not err in dismissing her race-based hostile work environment claim.

While the Court agreed that there was a lower standard of proving retaliation compared to discrimination, this did not save her retaliatory harassment claim because, as discussed above, she failed to allege sufficiently severe or pervasive behavior necessary for the harassment part of her claim.  “[O]ur circuit has repeatedly held that a retaliatory hostile work environment claim must include evidence that the harassment was severe or pervasive.”

When the employer argued that her discrimination claim was untimely -- because the alleged acts took place more than 300 days before her EEOC charge was filed -- she apparently did not make any legal argument to the contrary.  Accordingly, her claim was deemed abandoned on appeal.  Nonetheless, the Court also observed that she failed to allege that any of the discrete acts were motivated by racial animus and to allege that she was treated worse than anyone similarly situated to her.  “]H]er conclusory statement that [the employer] treated her poorly “because of her race” is insufficient for purposes of a motion to dismiss.”

Similarly, when the employer challenged her retaliation claim as untimely, she made no legal arguments in opposition.  Accordingly, her claim was deemed abandoned.

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 Rejects Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment Claims Despite a Toxic Work Culture

At the end of last year, the unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals found that the existence of a “toxic work culture” (as described by a concurring opinion) does not necessarily mean a legally hostile work environment or unlawful discrimination.  Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022-Ohio-4783.  The plaintiffs were assigned by one state agency to work alongside the employees of another state agency, which had its own rules and disciplinary procedures.  Even though all of the employees (including the plaintiffs) reported to the same supervisor, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs could not compare themselves to the other agency’s employees without evidence that they had been subject to and violated similar rules or evidence that such rules had been violated by anyone outside their protected class.  They also could not show pretext when they admitted violated DYS rules.  Finally, they could not base hostile work environment claims on overhearing a relatively few number of vague conversations about politically charged and potentially race-based issues (like gun control, police shootings, abortion, unidentified movies, lynching, homophobia, etc.) which were not directed at them personally, and were not physically threatening or humiliating.  The plaintiffs’ subjective reaction to the alleged conduct could show that it interfered with their work, but it could not prove that the workplace was objectively hostile or abusive to a reasonable person. The Court also rejected the retaliation claim for being filed outside the two-year statute of limitations under the Court of Claims Act. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiffs worked at an IT Help Desk staffed by both ODRC and DYS employees, which were subject to the rules of their respective agencies.  All of the ODRC employees were white and the DYS employees were black.  There was one mixed race contractor.   The plaintiffs admittedly violated rules of their employing agency and apparently were unaware of the rules governing the employees of the other agency, merely assuming that they were the same, and whether the other employees had obtained prior authorization for their actions.  One plaintiff worked a tiny amount of unauthorized overtime.   One plaintiff corrected his own timesheet on the computer without prior authorization.  They both learned from the contractor that the ODRC employees had been called into a meeting with their supervisor and told if they had complaints about the plaintiffs, they had to complete written incident reports.  The plaintiffs similarly submitted written complaints about the ODRC employees, became upset by the situation, eventually visited EAP and then left work for mental health reasons before filing their lawsuit, which was dismissed on summary judgment.

The appeals court found that they could not prevail on discrimination claims for a number of reasons.  First, they could not show that the ODRC employees had violated similar rules because the ODRC employees were subject to ODRC rules, not DYS rules, and there was apparently no evidence what those rules were or whether their conduct had been previously authorized.  Second, the plaintiffs admittedly violated DYS rules and could not show that their disciplinary action and coaching was pretextual for discrimination.   The Court also found that it was speculative that the meeting held with the ODRC employees was racially motivated merely because the employees were all white because it is a legitimate business reason to meet with employees to explain the complaint procedures and the contractor was not at her desk when the meeting was called. 

The Court also rejected the hostile work environment claims.  First, the plaintiffs could not rely on the alleged discriminatory conduct which had already been rejected.  Second, it found that the relatively few overheard conversations – i.e., no more than six in a four-to-six month period – were too infrequent to be “pervasive” or support a hostile work environment claim.    They were also not severe enough: 

Considering all the circumstances, we agree with the Court of Claims that appellants have not demonstrated circumstances severe enough to constitute harassment within the meaning of a hostile work environment claim. The conversations appellants overheard, while offensive utterances and in poor taste, were infrequent and did not occur regularly. [Plaintiffs] alleged they overheard these conversations only a few times and could not provide specific details about when they occurred or the contents of the conversations beyond their general topics. Additionally, the conversations were not directed at appellants, and the "second-hand" nature of the comments is relevant to determination of their severity.

While the plaintiffs could show that the alleged conduct subjectively affected them and forced them to leave their jobs, a subjective feeling or belief is not evidence of an objectively hostile or abusive work environment:

Though appellants alleged the working conditions were so hostile as to force them to separate from their employment, this argument only reflects appellants' subjective perceptions of the conduct. However, in order for the conduct to be actionable under a hostile work environment claim, appellants must also demonstrate the conduct is severe and/or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment. . . . The work environment is objectively hostile or abusive where it is "an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive." (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id. "Mere utterance of an * * * epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment" to create a hostile work environment. (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

Here, appellants put forth evidence that they did not get along with their ODRC counterparts at the help desk. However, mindful of the stringent standard applicable to hostile work environment claims, appellants simply do not allege sufficient harassment based on race such that there is a genuine issue of material fact on this claim. Based on the Civ.R. 56 evidence presented, the conversations [Plaintiffs] overheard were infrequent, isolated incidents, and the conversations were not directed at appellants. The comments were not physically threatening or sufficiently humiliating to create a hostile work environment claim. Appellants failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact that the alleged conduct was so severe or pervasive as to create an objectively hostile work environment. . . . Accordingly, we agree with the Court of Claims that appellees are entitled to summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim.

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: Reassigning Shifts to Achieve Racial Diversity Can Constitute Actionable Race Discrimination.

Last July, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment, finding that considering race when making shift assignments in order to ensure a diverse management team could constitute actionable race discrimination and was not a de minimis matter.  Threat v. City of Cleveland, 6 F.4^th 672 (6^th Cir. 2021).  “When an employee’s race is a basis for a shift change that denies the privileges of that employee’s seniority, the employer has discriminated on the basis of race in the terms and privileges of employment.”  It rejected the argument that a shift assignment was never a material adverse employment action. “The point of our cases is to convey that an employer’s alteration of the ‘terms’ or ‘privileges’ of an employee’s work is actionable only when it is ‘adverse’ and ‘material’ to the work.” Moreover, “to give the de minimis rule too broad a reach would contradict congressional intent by denying proper effect to a statute.” The Court also dismissed the argument that Title VII only reaches employment decisions which cause economic harm when the statute reaches not only discrimination in compensation but also discrimination in other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.

According to the Court’s opinion, EMS captains were permitted by the bargaining agreement to choose their shifts according to their respective seniority, but the City could change up to four of them for any reason even if it conflicted with the captain’s first choice.  After the shift bid process, it turned out that the day shifts were staffed with all black captains.  In order to ensure racial diversity on the shift, the EMS Commissioner moved one to the night shift and replaced him with a white captain (even though it interfered with that captain’s child visitation schedule).  Discrimination and unfair labor practice charges, public accusations and litigation ensued.

There is little room for debate that the city discriminated against the plaintiffs—that it treated them differently.  . . . .

There also is little room for debate that the city treated the black captains differently “because of” their “race.” [The EMS Commissioner] admitted that she switched out a black captain for a white one to adjust the shift’s racial makeup. That counts as direct evidence of discrimination based on race. . . .

The main debate in this case turns on the meaning of “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Do the city’s shift schedules amount to “terms” of employment? Does getting priority because of seniority in choosing shifts amount to a “privilege” of employment?

At one level, that seems easy. If the words of Title VII are our compass, it is straightforward to say that a shift schedule—whether, for example, the employee works the night shift or the day shift—counts as a term of employment. It’s not even clear that we need dictionaries to confirm what fluent speakers of English know. A shift schedule is a term of employment . . .

 . . .

Pulling the meaning of these key terms together, the city decided when Anderson had to work based on his race—and in the process discriminated against him based on race with respect to his terms and privileges of employment. The race-based shift change controlled when and with whom he worked, prohibited him from exercising his seniority rights, and diminished his supervisory responsibilities when the city imposed the night shift on him. All told, the action amounted to discrimination with respect to his terms and privileges of employment under § 703(a)(1).

The City argued that the shift assignments were not materially adverse employment actions that could be litigated under Title VII.  However, the Court found that the City underestimated the importance of a shift assignment.

We do not see the same gap between the words of Title VII and our liquidation of those words. The point of our cases is to convey that an employer’s alteration of the “terms” or “privileges” of an employee’s work is actionable only when it is “adverse” and “material” to the work. To “discriminate” reasonably sweeps in some form of an adversity and a materiality threshold. It prevents “the undefined word ‘discrimination’” from “command[ing] judges to supervise the minutiae of personnel management.” . . . It ensures that a discrimination claim involves a meaningful difference in the terms of employment and one that injures the affected employee. And it ensures that any claim under Title VII involves an Article III injury—and not, for example, differential treatment that helps the employee or perhaps even was requested by the employee. . . .. Surely those are reasonable assumptions.

At the same time, our approach honors a de minimis exception that forms the backdrop of all laws. The “doctrine de minimis non curat lex (the law does not take account of trifles)” has “roots [that] stretch to ancient soil.” . . . So ancient, the “old law maxim” was already venerable at the founding. Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199, 268 (1796). From the beginning, the de minimis canon has been “part of the established background of legal principles against which all enactments are adopted, and which all enactments (absent contrary indication) are deemed to accept.” . . . .

When Congress enacted Title VII, the National Legislature provided no indication that it sought to disregard these considerations or to use the word “discriminate” to cover any difference in personnel matters. Yes, “hundreds if not thousands of decisions say that an ‘adverse employment action’ is essential to the plaintiff’s prima facie case” even though “that term does not appear in any employment-discrimination statute.”. . . . And, yes, the same could be said about a “materiality” requirement. But we take these innovations to be shorthand for the operative words in the statute and otherwise to incorporate a de minimis exception to Title VII.

But de minimis means de minimis, and shorthand characterizations of laws should not stray. Else, like “the children’s game of telephone,” we risk “converting the ultimate message into something quite different from the original message—indeed sometimes into the opposite message.” . . . “[T]o give the de minimis rule too broad a reach would contradict congressional intent by denying proper effect to a statute.” . . . That concern, however, must be balanced against the reality that “we cannot just toss the de minimis rule aside.” Id.

In this instance, employer-required shift changes from a preferred day to another day or from day shifts to night shifts exceed any de minimis exception, any fair construction of the anchoring words of Title VII, and for that matter any Article III injury requirement. Whether we refer to claims of discrimination based on race in “terms” or “privileges” of employment or to claims of discrimination based on race in “materially adverse” terms of employment, the conclusion is the same: They state a cognizable claim under Title VII when they refer to shift changes of this sort and under these circumstances.

While acknowledging that some prior Sixth Circuit cases have dismissed challenges to shift assignments as not implicating a material adverse employment action, the Court concluded:

Not all shift changes are the same. And some shift changes and reassignments may constitute, say, race-based discrimination in “terms,” “privileges,” and other aspects of employment.

The Court also dismissed the argument that Title VII only reaches employment decisions that cause economic harm when the statute reaches not only discrimination in compensation but also discrimination in other terms, conditions and privileges of employment.

Cabining the provision to pocketbook harms would render meaningless many of the words in the statutory phrase “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” As the words after “compensation” suggest, Title VII indeed extends beyond “economic” discrimination.

The Court also remanded the claims of the other captains who were not reassigned so that the trial court could consider whether the reassignments controlled with whom they could work.   The Court affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim based on the unfair labor practice charge filed against their union.

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 Reversed Columbus Employer’s Summary Judgment on Employment Discrimination Claim, But Affirmed Dismissal of Constructive Discharge Claim.

Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit reversed a Columbus employer’s summary judgment on an employment discrimination claim, but affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim.   Henry v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 15-4165 (6^th Cir. 6-10-16). The plaintiff alleged that she had been denied the opportunity for promotion and was retaliated against when she protested and ultimately filed an OCRC Charge.  The Court concluded that she could rely on similarly situated employees (who had similar qualifications and much less tenure) who reported to different supervisors to show both discrimination and pretext.   The Court also agreed that she could prove that she suffered increased scrutiny and adverse employment actions (through negative performance evaluations and performance plans) after she filed her Charge which could be attributed to her protected activity, but denied that her subjective belief that she was being forced to resign was sufficient to show constructive discharge without evidence that the employer deliberately created intolerable working conditions with the intention of forcing her to quit. 

The plaintiff had worked as a customer service representative since 1999 and in 2008 and 2009, she received “achieved expectations” evaluations.  To be promoted, she needed that level of annual evaluation, one year of experience and a favorable “readiness” rating by the quality assurance staff.  The last time she had been evaluated by the QA staff was in 2006 and it had not been favorable.  However, her supervisor did not survey the QA staff after her performance evaluations improved or refer her for additional training to make her eligible for promotion.  When the plaintiff inquired about her being overlooked for promotion, her supervisor told her that tenure was not important.   The plaintiff complained to HR in April 2010 when other new employees were then promoted instead of her.  When HR did not respond within the week, she filed an OCRC Charge in May, alleging employment discrimination.

HR questioned about her promotability and competence surveys were sent to the QA staff outside the regular schedule a month after the OCRC Charge had been received.  They were not favorable and were shared with the plaintiff.   The plaintiff rejected the feedback, so a quality coordinator was assigned to sit with her more frequently than normal in June.  Her scores plummeted and she complained to HR that she was being harassed.   Later that year, she had trouble acclimating to the adoption of SalesForce and made a significant security error in November, which resulted in her being placed on a two week disciplinary suspension.  There was a discussion about putting her on a performance improvement plan, but her managers were concerned that this would appear retaliatory.  Instead, they gave her a poor performance evaluation (which made her ineligible for promotion) in early 2011 and gave her scores which were depressed considering her objective statistics (because the latter months had been given greater weight than her earlier months).

The OCRC found probable cause of discrimination in April 2011 because she had been passed over for promotion in favor of co-workers outside her protected class with similar performance evaluations who had much less experience and tenure.   The next day, a manager said that he wanted to take the next step with her, but felt paralyzed.  Instead, two months later she was placed on a 60-day performance improvement plan.  The plaintiff took a two month stress leave of absence and announced her retirement upon her return because she felt that she was being forced to resign.  She then filed suit.  The district court ruled against her on all claims.  The Sixth Circuit reversed on the discrimination and retaliation claims, but affirmed denial of the constructive discharge claims.

While she had not received a favorable survey result from the QA staff (which was a requirement for being promoted),  no survey had been sought when she started receiving favorable performance evaluations.  This meant that the survey could not be a disqualifying reason.  Moreover, not every employee who had been promoted had been the subject of the survey.    When a survey was finally sought on her performance, it was done outside of cycle, which made it suspicious to the staff and was ignored by some of them.   The Court also concluded that she was permitted to compare herself to employees with different supervisors because they were similar in relevant respects and their supervisors reported to the same manager.

The Court also found sufficient evidence of pretext without slurs or other negative comments about her protected class.   She pointed out that no one in her protected class had been promoted since 2002.  Also, the explanations about her performance seemed pretextual because they directly contradicted the favorable comments written in her performance evaluations.   She clearly met the objective criteria to be promoted and management could not identify any employees who had met the objective criteria (i.e., performance scores) and had NOT been promoted (even though some of them had not worked there for even a year).    The employees who had been promoted did not have markedly supervisor qualifications which could also have explained the discrepancy.   A jury need not accept a subjective evaluation of the plaintiff’s performance to find pretext.

As for her retaliation claim, the Court found that the increased scrutiny of her performance within a month of receiving her OCRC Charge, poor performance evaluation eight months later (which rendered her ineligible for promotion), a performance improvement plan two months after a probable cause finding from the OCRC and being kept on the training line would dissuade a reasonable person from exercising her protected rights.  Multiple incidents over a year’s period can combine to form a materially adverse employment action. “A reasonable jury could also find that the other actions, although occurring later in time, also would not have occurred in the absence of Henry’s protected activity.”   It did not help the employer that the HR notes indicate that several managers were advocating for poor performance evaluations and concern about the OCRC Charge. Indeed, the day after the OCRC finding was received, a “note in an employee relations file” stated that they planned to wait “a reasonable amount of time” before “plac[ing] her on a formal coaching plan.”  This could reflect a pre-determined scheme to discipline her regardless of her actual job performance.  While the employer argued that her falling performance scores justified her rating, the jury could also attribute her falling scores to the increased scrutiny as a result of the OCRC Charge.   Indeed, her 2010 evaluation was markedly below her evaluations from 2003 through 2009, which, again, could be inferred was the result of retaliation instead of her actual job performance.

 

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 Race Discrimination Claims Where Newly Hired Co-Workers Were Paid More and Had More Job Related Education and Experience

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on race discrimination claims challenging common pay and promotional practices. Woods v. FacilitySource LLC, No. 15-3138 (6^th Cir. 2-3-16).  The Court also clarified what constitutes a Charge of Discrimination.  In affirming dismissal of the claims, the Court found that it was not discriminatory for the employer to pay new hires – with higher and more job-related college education – more than long-time employees without a college education or with only a fine arts degree.   The Court also recognized that when an employer fails to post promotional openings for Senior Account Managers, a plaintiff need not prove that he applied for a promotion in order to challenge promotions that were given to those outside his protected class.  Nonetheless, the Court found that individuals with higher levels and/or more job-related education and prior job experience were more qualified for those promotions than the plaintiffs.  Finally, while the Court found that a plaintiff – who was the only African-American manager - identified inappropriate racial comments and racial insensitivity in the workplace, it was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment.   

According to the Court’s opinion, one of the plaintiffs was the employer’s only African-American supervisor and the other plaintiff was his domestic partner who alleged that he was discriminated against because of his association with the other plaintiff.  They had been hired in 2005 at approximately $10/hour, had been promoted to the positions of Account Manager and were making approximately $42,000/year at the time that they filed their Charges.  Of the 26 other Account Managers, all but one was hired after them, 12 were hired after 2010 and most were paid significantly more than them, including 11 of the newly hired managers.   The employer defended the higher salaries paid to the other Account Managers on the basis that the market after 2010 was competitive and that they needed to increase the level of college education and prior management experience required for the positions and the starting salaries.  While the plaintiffs conceded the fairness of paying more for greater education and experience, they felt that their salaries should have been increased as well to reflect their greater seniority with the employer.   During pre-trial discovery, the employer discovered that one of the plaintiffs had made misrepresentations on his job application about having a high school diploma (which he lacked) and voluntarily leaving a job from which he was actually involuntarily terminated (when he had similarly lied on a job application).

Charge of Discrimination.  The plaintiffs sent notarized letters (signed under penalty of perjury) to the EEOC and OCRC and completed intake questionnaires, but never signed or dated official Charge of Discrimination forms.  Instead, they requested and received right-to-sue letters from the EEOC and filed suit.  The district court found that they exhausted their administrative remedies because, among other things, the EEOC treated their letters and questionnaires as Charges, but the EEOC filed an amicus brief indicating that this factor was irrelevant. The Court agreed that the EEOC’s treatment of the letters and questionnaires was irrelevant, but still found that the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies because the plaintiffs had filed Charges giving notice of their allegations and requesting the agencies to take action.

Pay Discrimination.  The employer conceded that the plaintiffs had alleged a prima facie case because they were paid less than all of their fellow Account Managers.  On appeal, the employer contended that the other Account Managers were more qualified than the plaintiffs and were paid more on account of a factor other than race.  In particular, the employer increased the starting salary for the position in 2010 to reflect increased requirements for college and job-related prior experience.  This resulted in virtually all of the new hires being paid more than most of the existing Account Managers, including plaintiffs.  The Court found this to be a non-discriminatory reason: The plaintiffs’

belief that seniority should have been given equal or greater weight than educational and experiential accomplishments does not mean that the defendants were guilty of wage discrimination simply because they viewed other criteria as more germane to their salary-determination decision.

As for the other Account Managers hired before 2010 who were also paid more than the plaintiffs, the Court found that they similarly possessed greater education (i.e., college degrees) and more relevant job experience than the plaintiffs.  One of the plaintiffs did not even have a high school degree and the other had a fine arts degree, unlike business, marketing or communications majors who had higher salaries.   In other words, the court found that a fine arts degree did not justify the same amount of salary paid to co-workers with a marketing degree or business classes:

Clearly, skills gained from such a [fine arts] degree were not as immediately transferrable to Lorenzo’s job at FacilitySource as were those from the degrees obtained and courses taken by other individuals in management and business related subjects.

Promotions.  The employer promoted a few Account Managers in to Senior Account Manager positions.  Even though the plaintiffs did not apply for these promotions, the Court found this was unnecessary in light of the employer’s failure to post the positions:

[I]n failure to promote cases a plaintiff does not have to establish that he applied for and was considered for the promotion when the employer does not notify its employees of the available promotion or does not provide a formal mechanism for expressing interest in the promotion. Instead, the company is held to a duty to consider all those who might reasonably be interested in a promotion were its availability made generally known.

Nonetheless, the plaintiffs could not prevail because one of them lacked the requisite college degree and the other was less qualified than the individuals ultimately promoted due to their more relevant college courses.

Hostile Work Environment.  The plaintiff was able to identify race-based comments and that clients were rarely introduced to him during walk-arounds unless they were also African-American or specifically requested to meet with him. “When directed toward or used to describe an African-American employee, especially the sole African-American employee in a management position, such comments and conduct must be considered both inappropriate and racially insensitive.”  However, the plaintiff never explained how this conduct was so offensive that it interfered with his work.   He was ultimately fired because of dishonesty on his job application, not because of his job performance.

 

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.

EEOC Revises Its “Equal Employment Opportunity Is the Law” Poster To Reflect November 21 Effective Date of Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

The EEOC has posted on its website the new EEO Is the Law poster which reflects the November 21 effective date of GINA. Every employer with more than 15 employees and most federal contractors are required to post a notice about the rights of applicants and employees under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the GINA, the Equal Pay Act, Executive Order 11246, the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, etc. Employers may post a supplemental poster next to their existing poster of employees news rights under GINA and the ADAA or may post an all new poster which incorporates the new rights under GINA. Employers may print out these posters in English and Spanish directly from the EEOC website or may order larger (and more readable) version to be mailed.

GINA was enacted in 2008 and has broader application to employers and healthcare providers than its name implies. Title I applies to group health plans sponsored by private employers, unions, and state and local government employers, issuers in the group and individuals health insurance markets, etc.

Sixth Circuit Enters Judgment for Employee’s Reinstatement Claim Because USERRA Trumps Employer’s Regular Return-to-Work Procedures.

Today, the Sixth Circuit issued an important decision applying USERRA, reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee whose re-employment rights had been violated. Petty v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davison County, No. 07-5649 (8/18/08). In that case, the Sixth Circuit faulted the employer for delaying the employee’s reinstatement to his former position beyond two weeks pending completion of the employer’s regular return-to-work process and pending completion of investigations about the plaintiff’s honesty in explaining the reasons for the termination of his military service.

While the plaintiff was serving in Kuwait, he was brought up on charges for violating the Code of Military Justice for conduct unbecoming an officer in having bootleg alcohol in his quarters and sharing the alcohol with an enlisted female soldier. He was eventually permitted to resign from the military in lieu of court martial, returned home on February 1 and sought reinstatement to his former job as a police sergeant on February 28, 2005. His discharge was identified by the military as “under honorable conditions.” Before the police department would reinstate him, however, they required him to undergo its standard return-to-work process to ensure that he was mentally, temperamentally and physically fit to serve as a police officer. This included “a personal history update questionnaire, a medical examination, a computer voice stress analysis, a drug screening, and a debriefing with a Police Department psychologist. In addition, the Police Department requests that returning officers execute a medical records authorization, and for individuals returning from military duty, an authorization to obtain military records.” After the plaintiff was required to explain in writing about any disciplinary charges during his military service, investigations arose as to whether he should be disqualified from police service because of the recommended court martial and because of concerns that the plaintiff had not honestly explained the situation during the return-to-work process.

Although the plaintiff was not rehired until March 21, 2005 – almost a month after he sought reinstatement – he was not reinstated into his former position as a sergeant. Rather, he was given a desk job accepting civilian complaints pending completion of the investigations into his former military service and his honesty during the return-to-work process. Ultimately, the employer determined that the military disciplinary action would not preclude his reinstatement, but it remained concerned about his honesty in disclosing the subject. Thereupon, it was discovered that plaintiff had not submitted a complete copy of his DD-214 form memorializing his honorable discharge. Rather, the copy he had submitted had been so enlarged that the last three sections of the form – one of which indicated that he had resigned in lieu of court martial – had been deleted from the form. As this situation continued, plaintiff requested authorization to resume his off-duty security work, but was denied in light of the investigations into his honesty.

Plaintiff then filed suit alleging that his USERRA rights had been violated. The district court granted summary judgment to the City on the grounds that Plaintiff had been treated the same as other police officers who took leaves of absence and could not prove any unlawful discrimination. The Sixth Circuit reversed and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff employee:

“For the purposes of this case, USERRA performs four key functions. First, it guarantees returning veterans a right of reemployment after military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4312. Second, it prescribes the position to which such veterans are entitled upon their return. 38 U.S.C. § 4313. Third, it prevents employers from discriminating against returning veterans on account of their military service. 38 U.S.C. § 4311. Fourth, it prevents employers from firing without cause any returning veterans within one year of reemployment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316.”

The Court found that “upon his return, he was required to request reemployment from Metro within the time frame outlined in § 4312(e) and with the documentation specified by § 4312(f). [In addition], his separation from service must have been under “honorable conditions.” 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2).

The documents which satisfy the documentation requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 4312 are identified in 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123. Among those listed is a form DD-214, which the employee provided when he sought reinstatement. But the employer argued that the employee’s DD-214 was not sufficient under USERRA, because the copy which he submitted admittedly did not include three fields at the bottom of the form — most notably one including the statement “Narrative Reason for Separation: In lieu of trial by courtmartial.” The employer also argued that the DD-214 was “void” because the failure to include all fields constituted an alteration voiding the form.

The Court held that “it would be inconsistent with the goals of USERRA to prevent [the employee] from exercising his right to reemployment because he failed to provide forthrightly information that is statutorily unnecessary to his establishing the right in the first place. First, 20 C.F.R. § 1002.123(a)(2) expressly recognizes that the types of documentation necessary to establish eligibility for reemployment may vary from case to case. The focus of USERRA is on securing rights to returning veterans, not on ensuring that any particular documentation is produced. Second, in compliance with [the employer’s] return-to-work process, [the employee] signed an authorization granting [the employer] unfettered access to all of his medical and military records, including a complete DD-214. Accordingly, we find that [the plaintiff] satisfied USERRA’s documentation requirement, and, inasmuch as [the employer] does not dispute his having satisfied the other statutory prerequisites, it is apparent that he established his right to reemployment as guaranteed by §§ 4312 and 4313. [The employer], therefore, was not permitted to delay or otherwise limit [the plaintiff’s] reemployment rights in any way; in particular, [the employer] was not permitted to limit or delay [the employee’s] reemployment by requiring him to comply with its return-to-work process. Section 4302(b) expressly states that USERRA “supersedes any . . . contract, agreement, policy, plan, practice, or other matter that reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit provided by this chapter, including the establishment of additional prerequisites to the exercise of any such right or the receipt of any such benefit.” By applying its return-to-work process to [the plaintiff], [the employer] not only delayed his reemployment, but as we shall explain, it also limited and withheld benefits to which [the employee] was entitled under USERRA.”

“It is of no consequence here that [the employer] believes it is obligated to “ensure that each and every individual entrusted with the responsibility of being a Metropolitan Police Officer is still physically, emotionally, and temperamentally qualified to be a police officer after having been absent from the Department.” In USERRA, Congress clearly expressed its view that a returning veteran’s reemployment rights take precedence over such concerns. [The employer] does not question [the employee’s] physical qualifications; instead, it questions only whether his conduct during his military service would disqualify him from returning to service in the police department. But [the plaintiff’s] separation from military service is classified as “under honorable conditions,” which Congress has made clear suffices to qualify him for USERRA benefits, 38 U.S.C. § 4304(2). To the extent that his military service may have in fact left [the employee] unfit to carry out his duties as a police officer but is not reflected in the classification of his separation from service, USERRA would allow, after his reemployment, a “for cause” termination of that employment. 38 U.S.C. § 4316. Furthermore, Congress recognized USERRA would limit the ability of employers to rescreen returning veterans, but still chose to make this the general rule under USERRA. This is evident because, in certain circumstances, Congress altered this general rule to allow vetting of returning veterans before full rehiring. Section 4315 allows the heads of agencies listed under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) – e.g., FBI, CIA, NSA – to “prescribe procedures for ensuring that the rights under [USERRA] apply to employees of such agency.” 38 U.S.C. § 4315(a). Congress did not grant similar discretion to local police departments; therefore, [the employer’s] return-to-work process as applied to [the plaintiff] was in violation of USERRA’s reemployment provisions.” (emphasis added).

The Court also found that the lower court had erred in endorsing the City’s return-to-work process because they did not discriminate against veterans under USERRA. “First, § 4302(b) does not limit its superseding effect only to “additional prerequisites.” It supersedes any “policy, plan, [or] practice” that “reduces, limits, or eliminates in any manner any right or benefit” provided by USERRA, “including,” but not necessarily limited to, “the establishment of additional prerequisites.” Second, [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures do constitute “additional prerequisites” for returning veterans, because the procedures are in addition to the requirements Congress specified for the exercise of USERRA’s reemployment rights. The district court apparently viewed the term “additional prerequisites” as meaning “additional to the employer’s existing prerequisites,” and concluded that [the employer’s] procedures are not discriminatory because they apply to all individuals returning to the department. But this analysis is not appropriate for a claim brought under § 4312, and the superseding effect of § 4302(b) is not so limited; [the employer’s] return-to-work procedures are indeed superseded by USERRA’s reemployment provisions.

It is important to note that [the plaintiff] was not required to make any showing of discrimination in order to sustain either of his reemployment claims. The district court incorrectly characterized part of [the plaintiff’s] reemployment claim — that part dealing with the position to which he was reinstated — as being part of his discrimination claims and therefore held that it required a showing of discrimination. . . . the Department of Labor specified that “[t]he employee is not required to prove that the employer discriminated against him or her because of the employee’s uniformed service in order to be eligible for reemployment.” 20 C.F.R. § 1002.33 . . . , the imposition of § 4311’s discrimination requirement on a reemployment claim is not consistent with the plain language of §§ 4312 and 4313. Section 4313 states that any “person entitled to reemployment under section 4312” — which we have found [the employee] to be — “shall be promptly reemployed in a position of employment in accordance with the” order of priority outlined in § 4313(a)(2). Thus, the express terms of § 4313 make its application contingent only on the prerequisites of § 4312, none of which include a showing of discrimination.”

“At the point at which [the employee] was entitled to reemployment under §§ 4312 and 4313, [the employer] had no basis on which to question his qualifications. [the employee] had satisfied the only prerequisites to § 4313 — those specified in § 4312 — and [the employer’s] attempt to impose additional prerequisites through its return-to-work process was, as we have already explained, wholly impermissible.” The employer’s return-to-work process (and the questions about the plaintiff’s honesty which arose during that process) “cannot serve as a basis for delaying or otherwise limiting [the employee’s] right to reemployment.”

The Court found that not only did the employer fail to properly rehire the plaintiff, but it also failed to reinstate him to his former position: “Because of its return-to-work process, [the employer] took three weeks to “rehire” [the employee], and even then it did not place [the employee] in the correct position as outlined in § 4313.” The employer “cannot defeat the “prompt reemployment” guarantee of § 4313 by engaging in never-ending investigations into [the employee’s] qualifications. Indeed, courts have recognized that: It is presumed under the law that a veteran, who was qualified for his employment status upon its termination by his entry into the active military service of the United States, remains qualified to claim reemployment upon his discharge from such active military service. . . . An employer who refuses to reemploy a discharged veteran who has timely applied for reemployment has the burden of proving the veteran's disqualification for reemployment.” Because the employer failed to meet that burden, the Court ordered the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the employee on his claims that the City failed to properly reinstate him to his former position as a police sergeant within two weeks of his seeking reinstatement.

Finally, the Court held that the plaintiff’s complaint about not being authorized for off-duty security work could not be brought as a reinstatement claim, but rather should be analyzed as a discrimination claim. At that point, the court analyzed whether the plaintiff’s military service was a motivating factor for the denial of his request to perform off-duty security work. Because the trial court failed to conduct the proper analysis, the Court remanded that claim to the court for reconsideration.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0302p-06.pdf.

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

Ohio Appellate Court: National Bank Act Pre-empts Ohio Discrimination Claim, But Question Exists Whether Board Properly Terminated Plaintiff under NBA

Late last month, the Summit County Court of Appeals held that the National Bank Act pre-empted the state law gender discriminatory treatment claims of a discharged business banking officer, but not her state law retaliatory discharge claims. Boesch v. Champaign National Bank, No. 2008-Ohio-3282 (6/30/08). While the undisputed evidence showed that the plaintiff was a bank “officer” who was appointed by the bank’s board of directors, there was an evidentiary question as to whether she was discharged by the bank’s president or the board because of the manner of preparation and presentation of the board’s minutes and an amendment concerning her termination.

The Court recognized that the power granted to banks by the National Bank Act “to appoint and dismiss officers at ‘pleasure’ conflicts with the Ohio statutory provisions precluding employment discrimination and retaliation.” While the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Fifth), gives national banks the power: "[t]o elect or appoint directors, and by its board of directors to appoint a president, vice president, cashier, and other officers, define their duties, require bonds of them and fix the penalty thereof, dismiss such officers or any of them at pleasure, and appoint others to fill their places, " the Ohio Civil Rights Act State Act, O.R.C. § 4112.02(A), in contrast provides that “ it is an unlawful discriminatory practice: [f]or any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.” Moreover, “[w]ith respect to retaliation, state law provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice: [f]or any person to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 of the Revised Code."

The court was faced with deciding whether the National Bank Act preempted state law under the constitution’s supremacy clause and recognized that the Sixth Circuit regularly recognized this preemption. Because the plaintiff had been properly hired by the bank president with authority from the bank’s board of directors and the decision was properly ratified by the bank’s board, the court found that the evidence showed that she was a bank “officer” covered by the National Banking Act. Therefore, the court concluded that her state law discrimination claims were pre-empted by federal law.

However, the Court also concluded that there was an evidentiary question as to whether her discharge was authorized and/or ratified by the bank’s board of directors. The bank’s president discharged the plaintiff and during litigation submitted an affidavit asserting “that the bank's board of directors terminated [plaintiff] and that such action is reflected in an amendment to the minutes of the meeting in which the board made that decision.” The plaintiff questioned the authenticity of the board minutes because “the amendment was undated and dealt with no other bank business . . . [and the bank] did not provide the original minutes of the board's meeting. She alleges that the amendment appears to have been created for litigation purposes and concludes that there is a question as to whether the ratification was "prompt" and appropriate under the NBA.” The Court agreed that these were valid evidentiary issues for a jury to resolve. Moreover, the court was “unable to determine from the record whether the board had delegated its authority to Lamping to terminate Boesch. . . . [raising] the issue of whether [plaintiff’s] termination was accomplished by the board of directors, or whether it was an individual action” by the bank president.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/9/2008/2008-ohio-3282.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.

NLRB: Employers Can Support Charities and Ban Use of Employer’s Email System Without Violating the NLRA

[Editor's Note: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the Board's holding that the employer did not violate the NLRA by disciplining the union president on the grounds that the employer permitted other personal email solicitations.Guard Publishing Co. d/b/a The Register-Guard v. NLRB, No. 07-1528, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (July 7, 2009). ]

Just in time to stuff the Xmas stockings of good charities (like the Salvation Army, Red Cross and United Way) and employers, a divided NLRB in a 3-2 decision recently announced a new rule regarding the use of employer email systems to support union activities in The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (12/16/07). The NLRB’s majority concluded that that a newspaper publisher employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by maintaining a broad policy which prohibited employees from using its e-mail system for any “non-job-related solicitations.” Further, the Board’s majority rejected allegations of discriminatory enforcement of the policy when the employer permitted incidental personal use of the email system (and to periodically solicit funds for the United Way) as long as the employees were not permitted to use the email system to elicit support for groups and organizations, including union. Indeed, the Board explicitly endorsed, “[f]or example, a rule that permitted charitable solicitations but not noncharitable solicitations [even though it] would permit solicitations for the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, but it would prohibit solicitations for Avon and the union.”

In particular, the employer’s written policy prohibited the use of e-mail for “non-job-related solicitations”: "Company communication systems and the equipment used to operate the communication system are owned and provided by the Company to assist in conducting the business of The Register-Guard. Communications systems are not to be used to solicit or proselytize for commercial ventures, religious or political causes, outside organizations, or other non-job-related solicitations."

In practice, the employer allowed a number of nonwork-related employee e-mails (such as such as baby announcements, party invitations, jokes and the occasional offer of sports tickets or request for services such as dog walking), but there was no evidence that it regularly permitted e-mails urging support for groups or organizations, other than the United Way. The employer issued two written warnings to an employee (who was also the local union president) for sending three union-related e-mails to the workforce during non-working time. One email was sent from her workstation computer and two were sent from the union offices to the employees’ work email addresses. The unfair labor practice complaint alleged that the employer’s maintenance of the policy and its enforcement against the union president violated the NLRA.

Addressing the maintenance of the policy, the Board majority reasoned that employees have no statutory right to use an employer’s equipment for Section 7 purposes. “An employer has a “basic property right” to “regulate and restrict employee use of company property.” Union Carbide Corp. v. NLRB, 714 F.2d 657, 663–664 (6th Cir. 1983). The Respondent’s communications system, including its e-mail system, is the Respondent’s property and was purchased by the Respondent for use in operating its business. The General Counsel concedes that the Respondent has a legitimate business interest in maintaining the efficient operation of its e-mail system, and that employers who have invested in an e-mail system have valid concerns about such issues as preserving server space, protecting against computer viruses and dissemination of confidential information, and avoiding company liability for employees’ inappropriate e-mails.”

Moreover, the majority found that Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945), in which the Court held that a ban on solicitation during nonworking time was unlawful absent special circumstances, applied only to face-to-face solicitations was inapplicable to the use of an employer’s e-mail system. Consequently, the Board majority found no basis to refrain from applying the settled principle that, absent discrimination, employees have no statutory right to use an employer’s equipment or media for Section 7 communications.” "As with oral solicitations, however, if an employer has no rule in place that limits nonwork-related e-mails to nonworking time, the employer must show an actual interference with production or discipline in order to discipline employees for e-mails sent on working time."

With respect to the alleged discriminatory application of the policy to the union president’s e-mails, the majority “clarified” that “discrimination under the Act means drawing a distinction along Section 7 lines.” “In other words, unlawful discrimination consists of disparate treatment of activities or communications of a similar character because of their union or other Section 7-protected status.” The majority adopted the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, noting that in two cases involving the use of employer bulletin boards, the court had distinguished between personal nonwork-related postings such as for-sale notices and wedding announcements, on the one hand, and “group” or “organizational” postings such as union materials on the other. See Fleming Companies v. NLRB, 349 F.3d 968, 975 (7th Cir. 2003). The Board majority found that the court’s analysis, “rather than existing Board precedent, better reflects the principle that discrimination means the unequal treatment of equals.” Therefore, the majority overruled the Board’s prior decisions to the extent they are inconsistent.

Applying the new standard, the majority found that the employer had permitted a variety of personal, nonwork-related e-mails, but had never permitted e-mails to solicit support for a group or organization. Because two of the union president’s e-mails were solicitations to support the union, the employer did not discriminate in violation of the NLRA by applying its e-mail policy to those e-mails. However, the majority found that a third e-mail by the union president was not a solicitation, but was simply a clarification of facts surrounding a recent union event. Accordingly, the enforcement of the policy with respect to that e-mail was unlawful (even though it was sent from her work station) because the employer had discriminated against the employee on the basis of her union activities.

As the Board explained the future application of its new rule, “an employer clearly would violate the Act if it permitted employees to use e-mail to solicit for one union but not another, or if it permitted solicitation by antiunion employees but not by prounion employees” because “[i]n either case, the employer has drawn a line between permitted and prohibited activities on Section 7 grounds. However, nothing in the Act prohibits an employer from drawing lines on a non-Section 7 basis. That is, an employer may draw a line between charitable solicitations and noncharitable solicitations, between solicitations of a personal nature (e.g., a car for sale) and solicitations for the commercial sale of a product (e.g., Avon products), between invitations for an organization and invitations of a personal nature, between solicitations and mere talk, and between business-related use and non-business-related use. In each of these examples, the fact that union solicitation would fall on the prohibited side of the line does not establish that the rule discriminates” in violation of the NLRA. For example, a rule that permitted charitable solicitations but not noncharitable solicitations would permit solicitations for the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, but it would prohibit solicitations for Avon and the union.

The Board also unanimously affirmed the judge’s finding that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining an overly broad rule, in the absence of special circumstances, prohibiting employees from wearing or displaying union insignia while working with the public.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.nlrb.gov/about_us/news_room/template_html.aspx?file=http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Press%20Releases/2007/R-2652.htm.

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

Union Relations: The NLRB's Semptember Hat Trick Benefits Employers

Suing Unions Just Got Safer. The NLRB recently rejected (in a 3-2 vote) its former position (which had already been rejected by the Supreme Court) and held “that the filing and maintenance of a reasonably based lawsuit does not violate the [NLRA], regardless of the motive for bringing it.” BE&K Construction Co., 351 NLRB No. 29 (9/29/07). In that case, the NLRB had previously held that the employer violated the NLRA when it sued a union and lost on summary judgment because the lawsuit had been brought in retaliation for the union campaigning against the employer’s receipt of a lucrative contract in 1987 (by, among other things, lobbying government agencies and politicians, handbilling, picketing, filing frivolous grievances against business partners and filing state court lawsuits, etc.). The NLRB had ordered the employer to pay the union’s legal fees in defending against the lawsuit, but was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court had previously held in Bill Johnson’s, that, with respect to ongoing litigation, “[t]he filing and prosecution of a well-founded lawsuit may not be enjoined as an unfair labor practice, even if [the suit] would not have been commenced but for the plaintiff’s desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights protected by the Act.” The Board recognized that the U.S. Constitutional guarantee of the right to petition government is sacred (even for unfeeling employers) and cannot be limited by restrictions on reasonable lawsuits. Only when the plaintiff has no hope of recovering could a retaliatory lawsuit constitute an unfair labor practice. The result is the same whether the litigation is pending or has been concluded. Insomniacs can read the full decision at: http://www.nlrb.gov/research/decisions/board_decisions/template_html.aspx?file=http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/351/v35129.htm&size=188

Employee Choice Trumps Giving Union a Free Ride; Neutrality Agreements Aren’t What They Used to Be. The NLRB recently held that the recognition bar and the contract bar would no longer apply for the first 45 days after an employer voluntarily recognizes a union based on a card check (i.e., without a secret ballot vote) and that, as a result, employees could file decertification petitions in the 45 days following a voluntarily recognition of a union based on a card-check. Dana Corp., 351 NLRB No. 28) (9/29/07). This right to seek decertification is not affected by any collective bargaining agreement which the employer reaches with the union (following good faith bargaining as required following the voluntarily recognition of the union). Indeed, if the parties fail to provide employees of notice of their right to seek decertification for 45 days, neither the recognition bar nor the contract bar will not prevent any future election (for decertification or for a rival union).

In that case, the two employers entered into neutrality and card check agreements with the UAW. Within 35 days of recognizing the unions, employees in both units filed de-certification petitions with the NLRB. The applicable Regional Directors dismissed both petitions “based on an application of the Board’s recognition-bar doctrine” (i.e., , “an employer’s voluntary recognition of a union, in good faith and based on a demonstrated majority status, immediately bars an election petition filed by an employee or a rival union for a reasonable period of time. A collective-bargaining agreement executed during this insulated period generally bars Board elections for up to 3 years of the new contract’s term.”) The Board recognized that:

"the immediate post-recognition imposition of an election bar does not give sufficient weight to the protection of the statutory rights of affected employees to exercise their choice on collective-bargaining representation through the preferred method of a Board-conducted election.

"In order to achieve a “finer balance” of interests that better protects employees’free choice, we herein modify the Board’s recognition-bar doctrine and hold that no election bar will be imposed after a card-based recognition unless (1) employees in the bargaining unit receive notice of the recognition and of their right, within 45 days of the notice, to file a decertification petition or to support the filing of a petition by a rival union, and (2) 45 days pass from the date of notice without the filing of a valid petition. If a valid petition supported by 30 percent or more of the unit employees is filed within 45 days of the notice, the petition will be processed. The requisite showing of interest in support of a petition may include employee signatures obtained before as well as after the recognition. These principles will govern regardless of whether a card-check and/or neutrality agreement preceded the union’s recognition.

"Modifications of the recognition bar cannot be fully effective without also addressing the election-bar status of contracts executed within the 45-day notice period, or contracts executed without employees having been given the newly- required notice of voluntary recognition. Consequently, we make parallel modifications to current contract-bar rules as well such that a collective-bargaining agreement executed on or after the date of voluntary recognition will not bar a decertification or rival union petition unless notice of recognition has been given and 45 days have passed without a valid petition being filed."


Union Salts No Longer Automatically Protected by the NLRA.

For many decades, some non-union employers have attempted to discourage union organization of their workforce by refusing to hire qualified union organizers that apply for work. These union organizers are paid by a union to apply to work at a non-union employer and, in addition to the wages paid by the non-union employer, are also paid by the union. Some of these “salters” also are suspected of attempting to disrupt the operations of the non-union employer so that it will not be as profitable as union employers and will “go on strike” rather than resign so as to protect re-employment rights. However, the Supreme Court has made clear that paid or unpaid union organizers are still considered to be employees under the NLRA. Town & Country Elec., Inc. v. NLRB, 116 S. Ct. 450 (1995). Refusing to hire an applicant because he or she has formerly worked for a union employer or is suspected of being a union organizer violates the NLRA. See e.g., NLRB v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 102 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1996).

Nonetheless, earlier this year, the NLRB limited back pay awards to salters who had been unlawfully terminated on the grounds that, among other things, they would not have remained employed long at a non-union employer or after their aim of unionizing the workforce had been achieved. In other words, there is only a rebuttable presumption of indefinite employment in salting ULP cases and the NLRB General Counsel bears the burden of proving the appropriate period of back pay. Oil Capital Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 118 (2007). See also,, Aneco Incorporated, v. National Labor Relations Board, 285 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2002).

Moreover, in September 2007, the NLRB went further and placed upon the Board’s General Counsel the burden of proving that the “salt” was genuinely interested in obtaining employment when s/he submitted a job application. Toering Electric Co., (9/29/07). The Board noted that job applicants are protected from discrimination in employment on the basis of their union activities. However, the Board then determined that “applicants” only include individuals who are genuinely interested in employment and are not motivated simply by the desire to file a ULP Charge if they are denied employment.

The Board felt that this ruling was necessary because some unions had “submitted batched applications on behalf of individuals who were neither aware of the applications nor interested in employment opportunities with the employer. In other cases, individuals submitted applications but were not interested in obtaining employment with the employer. Their applications, sometimes accompanied by conduct plainly inconsistent with an intent to seek employment [such as omitting any work history], were submitted solely to create a basis for unfair labor practice charges and thereby to inflict substantial litigation costs on the targeted employer. The absence of a clear and consistently applied requirement that the General Counsel must prove an applicant’s genuine interest in securing employment has opened the door to these abusive tactics. By imposing this requirement under FES, we shall prevent those who are not in any genuine sense real applicants for employment from being treated by the Board as if they were.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney. Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.nlrb.gov/shared_files/Board%20Decisions/351/v35118.pdf.