Sixth Circuit Rejects Pregnancy and FMLA Claims and Cat's Paw Theory and Evidence of Alleged Pattern and Practice Discrimination to Show Pretext Despite Temporal Proximity Evidence

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on claims of pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference and retaliation after the plaintiff had been fired in a RIF just 10 days after she disclosed her pregnancy to her new supervisor and a couple of HR employees.  Johnson v. Evolent Health, LLC., No. 22-5574 (6^th Cir. 3/2/23).  The Court agreed that there was no evidence showing that anyone who had been involved in the RIF and decision to terminate her employment knew that she was pregnant.  While temporal proximity is often enough to show causation, “the individuals who decided to terminate [the plaintiff] must still have ‘had actual knowledge of her pregnancy at the time that the adverse employment action was taken’ for a nexus to exist.  “Because [the plaintiff] failed to show that any individual who participated in the RIF process knew she was pregnant at the time of her termination, and because she cannot show that any employee who was aware of her pregnancy showed any animus towards her or influenced the decisions of decision makers [under a cat’s paw theory], she has not established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.” The Court also rejected evidence of alleged pattern and practice discrimination to show pretext because it does not evaluate individual employment decisions.   The Court rejected her FMLA claims on the same grounds.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired in 2018 and had received only “below expectations” on her first two annual performance evaluations and was about to be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.  Instead, the company decided to eliminate her department and offered her a transfer to a new team, which she accepted, sometime in 2020.  Her new supervisor reached out to her on February 10, 2020 to let her know that the reorganization would take place in a few weeks.  Meanwhile, on February 5, the Company identified the plaintiff and 67 other employees with poor performance evaluations for a reduction in force.  After analyzing which employees would have the least impact, 33 of them (including the plaintiff) were selected for the RIF on or about February 20.  All of these discussions were held among individuals who did not supervisor or manage the plaintiff.  Rather, her former supervisor was not informed until February 20 and was instructed that he would be the person to inform plaintiff since the reorganization had not yet been completed.  However, a few days earlier – on February 14 – the plaintiff had requested two days off from her new supervisor for doctor’s appointments because she had discovered that she was pregnant with twins.  The supervisor directed the plaintiff to contact Human Resources, but did not tell anyone else about the pregnancy.   The plaintiff then contacted the benefits department, which asked a few questions and put her on a tracking spreadsheet for pregnant employees.  On February 24, different Human Resources employees informed the plaintiff that her role was being eliminated and her employment terminated.  She protested that she had just been transferred and explained that she was pregnant.   No one else performing her duties was hired until the following year.  The plaintiff then filed suit for pregnancy discrimination and FMLA interference and retaliation.

The Court closely examined who had been involved in the RIF and termination decision (which had been finalized on February 21) and who had been informed of the plaintiff’s pregnancy on February 14.  It agreed that there was no evidence that anyone involved in the RIF decisions had been informed of the plaintiff’s pregnancy.  Rather, the plaintiff had only informed three people and none of those people share that information with anyone else, let alone anyone who was involved in the RIF decisions. 

Temporal proximity between the announcement of an employee’s pregnancy and that employee’s termination can sufficiently establish a nexus between the events. . . . . Even so, the individuals who decided to terminate [the plaintiff] must still have “had actual knowledge of her pregnancy at the time that the adverse employment action was taken” for a nexus to exist.

The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that other HR employees had access to the shared email box or tracking spreadsheet because they denied ever reviewing the information or learning about her pregnancy before her lawsuit.   The plaintiff could only speculate that other HR employees had actual knowledge and no actual evidence.

The Court also rejected the cat’s paw theory because she did not allege – let alone prove – that the individuals with knowledge of her pregnancy had any discriminatory animus whicvh they then used to influence others into taking discriminatory actions.

“In the employment discrimination context, ‘cat’s paw’ refers to a situation in which a biased subordinate, who lacks decisionmaking power, uses the formal decisionmaker as a dupe in a deliberate scheme to trigger a discriminatory employment action.” . . . . But the “predicate to cat’s paw” is a demonstration of discriminatory animus: that “by relying on this discriminatory information flow, the ultimate decisionmakers ‘acted as the conduit of the supervisor's prejudice––his cat's paw.’”  . . . [The plaintiff] does not allege that any subordinate employee, aware of her pregnancy or not, showed any discriminatory animus towards [her].

In any event, the plaintiff also could not show that the employer’s explanation for her termination was pretext for discrimination.   The plaintiff attempted to challenge the termination decision – based on her documented poor performance – because ultimately only half of the employee initially selected on February 6 were actually terminated and no extra supporting comments were offered to support her termination.  However, it was undisputed that she had poor performance scores and she was not the only terminated employee without extra supporting comments. 

The Court also rejected her argument that the employer’s explanation had shifted from position elimination to poor performance.  However, the Court did not find it inconsistent to find that her position had been selected for elimination based on her poor performance.   While the termination script never mentioned her poor performance, it never gave any explanation for how or why she had been selected for termination.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that pretext was shown because approximately 10% of pregnant employees were terminated by the Company.

pattern or practice evidence is unavailable to assess an individual plaintiff’s discrimination claim.  . . . Pattern-or-practice evidence is generally “inappropriate as a vehicle for proving discrimination in an individual case” because it does not evaluate individual hiring decisions. . . . It can support, however, an “otherwise-viable individual claim for disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglas framework,” although a plaintiff must still satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework to prevail. Id. [The plaintiff] is unable to separately satisfy the McDonnell Douglas framework. Thus, this evidence does not raise a triable issue of fact nor does it allow [her] claims to survive summary judgment.

Similarly, the Court again rejected the temporal proximity of her pregnancy announcement and the termination decision as evidence of pretext:

The temporal proximity of [her] disclosure of her pregnancy and her termination may be indirect evidence of pretext but cannot alone support pretext here. . . . . Even when the timing appears “suspect,” it “must be accompanied by other, independent evidence of pretext for [the plaintiff] to succeed.”

The Court likewise rejected her FMLA arguments because she could not show pretext for the employer’s decision for the reasons discussed above and because at least one other employee had been terminated without requesting 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.

Franklin County Court of Appeals Reverses Disparate Age Impact Verdict against ODNR Based on Informal Policy Against Double Dipping

Last week, a divided Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed a $507K verdict issued by the Court of Claims last year, finding that ODNR unlawfully discriminated on the basis of age when it refused to re-hire a retired employee and best qualified applicant based on an informal policy generally precluding the re-hire of retired employees because of the public’s skepticism with “double dipping.”  Warden v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, No. 2014-Ohio-35.  The Court of Claims Judge had dismissed the disparate treatment claim, but determined that the policy had a disparate impact against individuals over the age of 40 because it only applied to retired employees, who necessarily would be in the protected age group.  The Court of Appeals disregarded similar cases decided on summary judgment because while those cases recognized the legal theory being advocated by the plaintiff, they did not mandate a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor on the disparate treatment claim when the trial court resolved the facts against the plaintiff.  The Court also noted that the plaintiff had failed to plead or prove a disparate impact theory in his complaint, during summary judgment pleadings or at trial.  “The fact that ODNR's policy theoretically could only impact members of a protected class is not sufficient to prove a disparate impact claim.”  In this case, the evidence showed only that the policy affected two previously-retired applicants and the employer hired one of them. “An adverse effect on a single employee, or even a few employees, is not sufficient to establish disparate impact."

The Court agreed that the anti-retiree policy was not motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent because it was, instead, “motivated by a desire to prevent double-dipping as opposed to inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes about older workers.”

"When the employer's decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears." (Emphasis sic.) Id. at 611. Therefore, there is no disparate treatment when the factor motivating the employer is some feature other than the employee's age.

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 Upholds Injunction Requiring Firefighter Promotions Based on Disparate Impact from Promotional Examination

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the promotion of 18 white, minority and older plaintiffs to lieutenant and captain positions in the Akron fire department. Howe v. City of Akron, No. 11-3750 (6^th Cir. 7-22-13). The plaintiffs alleged that the 2004 promotional test caused a disparate impact in promotions among minorities and officers over the age of 40 seeking a promotion to lieutenant and among white officers seeking promotion to captain. Among the interesting conclusions in the opinion, the Court relieved the plaintiffs of the burden of establishing which part of the promotional test (i.e., written multiple-choice examination, interview, oral assessment, consideration of seniority level, and written work exercise or group exercise) or element of the promotional process constituted the specific employment practice being challenged as causing the disparate impact without having to show that the elements were incapable of separation. Second, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to prevail by showing there was a disparate impact in the rate of promotions even though there was no statistical disparity in the pass rate on the promotional test because the employees were promoted in rank order of their test scores. Third, the Court found that the trial court had not been required to instruct the jury about the "unusual employer" which engages in reverse discrimination because the employer failed to object during the charge conference and because this was a disparate impact (where motive is not an issue) instead of a disparate treatment case (where motive is an issue). Fourth, because, among other things, the City failed to suggest how to distinguish between worthy and unworthy plaintiffs, there was no abuse of discretion in ordering promotions even though the City had not budgeted for so many promotions and each of the plaintiffs only had a 29% chance of being promoted in the absence of discrimination. Fifth, a delay in promotions necessarily constitutes irreparable injuries to firefighters and back pay is not a sufficient remedy where the lack of experience from a non-promotion will adversely affect the plaintiffs in the next round of promotions. The Court also refused to consider harm to minority non-plaintiff employees who scored higher on the test and would be bypassed by the court-ordered promotions.

 According to the Court's opinion, the liability case was tried in 2008 to a jury, which found the City to have unlawfully discriminated against the 23 plaintiffs – 12 white captain candidates on the basis of race, 8 lieutenant candidates on the basis of age and 3 African-American lieutenant candidates on the basis of age and race. Although the Chief was permitted to interview candidates and select from among a ranked list of the top candidates for each promotion, he always selected the person with the highest test score. There was no statistical disparity in the pass rates on the exam, but there was a statistical disparity in the rate of promotions. Upon the commencement of the litigation, the City stopped making regular promotions off the list and, by July 2011, the Court concluded that there were 25 available vacancies in which to promote the successful plaintiffs and ordered the promotions of 18 plaintiffs. The City appealed the order. The Court also held a new trial on damages in November 2012 and indicated that it might reconsider the injunctive order to promote the plaintiffs. However, no final judgment has been rendered to date.

 In a Title VII case, the plaintiff-employee must make out a prima facie case wherein he identifies "a particular employment practice" that "caused a significant adverse effect on a protected group."

The City argues, citing Grant v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 446 F. App'x 737 (6th Cir. 2011), that the district court erred as a matter of law by permitting Plaintiffs to identify the promotional process in its entirety as a specific employment practice without requiring Plaintiffs to first show that the elements of the process were incapable of separation. According to the City, the only employment practices identified by Plaintiffs were the promotional exams, which cannot be said to have had an adverse impact because comparing pass rates did not demonstrate disparate impact based on race or age.

The Court disagreed: "The challenged promotional process in this case is easily distinguishable from that in Grant. Here, the City promoted candidates in rank-order by score results (where the score was the sum of the candidate's exam score plus seniority)."
 
The City next argued that it was an error to allow Plaintiffs to demonstrate an adverse effect from the examination by applying the "four-fifths rule" to the rate of promotions instead of to the exam pass rates. (This rule provides that "[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths . . . of the rate for the group with the highest rate" be "generally . . . regarded . . . as evidence of adverse impact." 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4 (D)). "Because we agree with the district court that the promotional process in this case constitutes a specific employment practice, we must also agree that the outcomes of that practice—promotion rates—are the proper metric for determining "adverse effect" or lack thereof." The City did not dispute that application of the rule showed a disparate impact in the promotion rates of minorities and older employees to the lieutenant position. While the City argued that the rule should have been applied to the pass-fail ratios from the examination, the plaintiffs successfully argued that this would be inappropriate where the applicants are promoted based on their test score. The Court refused to follow its prior unpublished decision in United Black Firefighters Ass'n v. City of Akron, 81 F.3d 161, at *2 (6th Cir. 1996) where it noted that the "District Court properly looked to the examination pass rate for black candidates, not the number of actual promotions . . . ."). Moreover, the Court found that the City's use of the "rule of three" (where the top three candidates were considered for each promotion) did not make a difference here where the Chief always promoted the candidate with the top score.
 
The City also disputed that there was any unlawful disparate impact based on race in the captain promotions. It challenged the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs must prove that the City was the "unusual employer" that engaged in reverse discrimination. However, the Court found that this objection was waived by not raising it during the charge conference even though it had raised this argument at the summary judgment stage. Moreover, the Court explained that it has had misgivings about the "unusual employer" rule and had never applied it in a disparate impact case where motive – unlike in disparate treatment cases – is irrelevant.
 
While the Court was sympathetic to the City's argument that not all of the plaintiffs would have been promoted in the absence of discrimination, all of them had proven a likelihood to prevail on the merits. 
 

Assuming, for argument's sake, that the City correctly estimates that the average candidate in this case would have only a 29% chance of promotion, there is no way for the district court to give each candidate 29% of a promotion while waiting for a final judgment. Additionally, the City has provided no basis on which to distinguish between worthy and unworthy Plaintiffs.

Given that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits as to liability and there is no way to provide a partial injunctive remedy, there is a sufficient likelihood of success as to individual promotions to warrant a preliminary injunction.

The Court also rejected the City's argument that the plaintiffs had failed to show irreparable injury because of a possible award of back pay. "Among other things, the district court noted that, without promotions, Plaintiffs will be unable to gain experience and unable to seek the next rank during the following round of testing." Moreover, "this Court has previously found that promotion delays constitute irreparable injury for firefighters."

 The Court also rejected the City's argument that 10 minority non-plaintiff officers would be harmed by promoting 8 older, white plaintiffs officers ahead of them because the City failed to explain whether the 10 non-plaintiffs would be promoted in the absence of the Court's order and because the City failed to prove that the harm would be caused from the Court's order rather than its own inaction in halting all promotions during the pendency of the litigation.

 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.

 

OFCCP Puts Teeth In EEOC Criminal Record Policy for A/A Employers

  At the end of January, the OFCCP issued Directive 306 concerning the consideration by affirmative action employers of the criminal records of applicants for employment.  As faithful readers may recall, last April 15, the EEOC issued its Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII.  The OFCCP has unsurprisingly adopted the EEOC’s position. Moreover, the OFCCP has gone into more detail about how this will affect affirmative action employers that are required  by the Vietnam Era Readjustment Assistance Act to list all job openings at “an appropriate local employment service office of the state employment security agency wherein the opening occurs" or "the appropriate employment service delivery system where the opening occurs."  Last May, the DOL required these government employment agencies to begin place conditions on the listing of job openings.  In short, they require notices to be provided to employers that list jobs and to applicants about the possible unlawful disparate impact (i.e., discrimination) that can occur from any employer’s disqualification of an applicant on the basis of his or her criminal record.  Therefore, these notices will go to many applicants for employment with an affirmative action employer which considers an applicant’s criminal record.

As you may recall, the EEOC reminded employers last April that consideration of criminal record histories has an adverse impact on certain minorities and is lawful only when justified by business-relatedness and business necessity.   The EEOC indicated that employers should conduct an individualized assessment of the circumstances surrounding a criminal conviction such as “notice to the individual that he has been screened out because of a criminal conviction; an opportunity for the individual to demonstrate that the exclusion should not be applied due to his particular circumstances; and consideration by the employer as to whether the additional information provided by the individual warrants an exception to the exclusion and shows that the policy as applied is not job related and consistent with business necessity.” 

As indicated by the OFCCP, screening applicants out because of a criminal record may invite closer scrutiny.  Moreover, employers and applicants will be reminded of the EEOC’s policy as follows:

·        When employers register with the government employment agency (like a One-Stop Career Center), they will be sent Notice #1, “explaining that the covered entity must comply with federal civil rights laws which, due to the likely adverse impact of criminal record exclusions on protected groups, generally prohibit categorical exclusions of individuals based solely on an arrest or conviction history.”   This notice also explains limits placed by the Fair Credit Reporting Act on the consideration of criminal records and federal Work Opportunity credits for hiring individuals with criminal records.   

·        Employers will also be required to identify job announcements “that include hiring restrictions based on arrest and/or conviction records.”  Once any job vacancy announcement is so identified, the employer will be sent Notice #2 encouraging the employer to remove or edit the vacancy announcement.

·        Employers will only be permitted to list job vacancies where criminal record histories will be considered as long as the applicants receive Notice #3, “explaining that the exclusions in the posting may have an adverse impact on protected groups and informing them that individuals with criminal history records are not prohibited from applying for the posted position.” Employees of the government employment agencies are forbidden from screening applicants based on their criminal record history and cannot refuse to refer an applicant because of his/her criminal history.

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.

A Couple of Recent Trial Court Decisions Shows that Truth Can Be Stranger Than Fiction

There have been a few notable trial court decisions within the last month that may interest you.  One deals with a $500K+ age discrimination award and the other concerns vegans and flu shots.   I usually do not report on these  decisions because they sometimes change on appeal and are not binding on other trial courts.  However, they can be indicative of legal issues invading the workplace and demonstrate why it is often best to avoid litigation if possible. 

The verdict receiving the most local media buzz is the $500K+ age discrimination award in Warden v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.   The Ohio Court of Claims ruled in favor of a retired employee who was rejected for his application to be rehired into his old job (for which he was undeniably the most qualified applicant) because the ODNR applied a new and unpublicized policy during the last recession of not rehiring retirees into their former jobs while they were also collecting a pension – a practice referred to as “double dipping.”  A review of the court docket shows that this case is even more interesting (to employment attorneys at least) than the significant monetary judgment reflects or the local media has reported.

As explained in the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, and the Court’s liability opinion, the plaintiff accepted a two-year buy out and retired in 2006. He was re-hired as an independent contractor to essentially perform his old job for a series of short-term contracts.  When a job similar to his old job was posted, he was encouraged to apply and did so.  His application made it through the screening process and he was interviewed.  The plaintiff received the highest interview scores and several managers/directors went to bat for him to be hired (both before and during the litigation).  At no time during the process was he told about a policy to not hire retirees.  (There was also a factual dispute as to whether the interviewers had been informed of the policy).  The HR Director refused to hire him because he was a retiree.  Therefore, the job went to the next most qualified applicant who was 15 years younger.  The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that his age was a motivating factor in the decision.

The ODNR explained that it had enacted the policy because “double dipping creates a distrust with the public.”  Re-employment of retirees was to be allowed only for short-term contracts where the job required specialized knowledge or experience and a number of factors were to be considered in evaluating exceptions. (The Court only noted one exception which had been made).  While the policy was memorialized in a memorandum by one HR Director, there was no written directive distributed to division heads or HR staff.  The court found that the policy -- against re-hiring retirees collecting a pension -- did not constitute direct evidence of discrimination, but rather, was a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason to reject the plaintiff’s application.  Moreover, the Court also concluded that the plaintiff failed to show that the ODNR’s explanation was pretextual for age discrimination.   Accordingly, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s disparate treatment theory of recovery.

Shockingly, the Court then concluded that the plaintiff should prevail on a disparate impact theory of liability even though this theory was not plead in the Complaint or  even mentioned in the plaintiff’s post-trial brief and no statistical evidence had been presented.  (In fact, the plaintiff’s post-trial brief even cites in its first footnote  to another Court of Claims summary judgment opinion from three years ago which had saved a similar policy from legal challenge).  The Court concluded that any policy which precludes employment on the basis of retirement under Ohio Revised Code § 145.32 necessarily is based on the fact that the individual is over the age of 40 (because no one is eligible to retire below the age of 55 or 30 years of service).  It then disputed the whole basis for public condemnation of double-dipping on the premise that it is legal and saves money because the state contributes less to the pension accrual of an already-retired employee, etc.   Therefore, the  Court found that the policy did not constitute a reasonable factor other than age which could justify the non-hire of the plaintiff.

The defendant employer argued in its Motion for Reconsideration that the evidence showed that the plaintiff was the only individual adversely affected by the ODNR policy.  (It even pointed out that the only time that the plaintiff’s counsel ever mentioned the words “disparate impact,” it was done by mistake and he quickly corrected himself).   Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the plaintiff could prevail on any legal theory supported by the facts and that statistical evidence was not necessary in a disparate impact claim.

Instead of ordering the ODNR to hire the plaintiff, the Court ordered the payment of back and front pay instead.  The plaintiff had indicated that he had only intended to work another five years and the new employee had been working in the job for three years at this point.   This judgment amounted to more than $507K and included his $64K annual starting salary, presumed annual step increases, fringe benefits calculated to equal 34.5% of his salary, $17.3K for the increased tax liability from a lump sum payment, pension accrual, repayment of court costs (including the costs of litigating) and attorney fees of $53,545.   He was also awarded 3% judgment interest.

I expect this decision to be appealed.

Religious Discrimination/Vegans/Flu Shots.  In an opinion written by federal Judge Spiegel in Cincinnati, the Court refused to dismiss a complaint which alleged that a hospital employer violated the plaintiff’s rights under Title VII to exercise her vegan religion by firing her in 2010 for refusing to take a flu shot. (Until the last week, most flu shots could only be manufactured using eggs).   Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, No. 11-CV-917 (S.D. Oh. 12-27-12).  Complaints such as this can only be dismissed if there is no set of facts which could sustain the legal theory.  This is a difficult standard to meet, but many observers were still surprised because veganism is not usually considered to be a religion and a hospital ‘s undue hardship for such a religious accommodation seems to be obvious (although, here, the hospital allegedly used to accommodate the plaintiff in the past).  The result of the Court’s opinion is that the case will proceed with discovery, summary judgment motions and possibly trial if the parties do not first settle the case. 

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 Issues New Enforcement Guidance on Employer Consideration of Criminal Records in Employment

Yesterday, the EEOC issued Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which restates in more detail the position it has held for a few decades concerning arrest records. Exclusion of applicants based solely on a record of being arrested has an unlawful disparate impact on African-American men without being job related because a mere arrest is not determinative of guilt or proof criminal conduct. In addition, the EEOC now indicates that exclusion of applicants for a criminal conviction may have a similar disparate impact unless the employer can show that it complied with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, that the employer always considers “the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job” (and often conducts an “individualized assessment” which involves discussing the issue with the individual) or that the employer is complying with another federal statute or regulation that conflicts with Title VII. “A covered employer is liable for violating Title VII when the plaintiff demonstrates that the employer’s neutral policy or practice has the effect of disproportionately screening out a Title VII-protected group and the employer fails to demonstrate that the policy or practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

At the heart of the EEOC’s position are the following statistics, some of which is from a Pew Center Report:

Arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African American and Hispanic men. African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population. Assuming that current incarceration rates remain unchanged, about 1 in 17 White men are expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime by contrast, this rate climbs to 1 in 6 for Hispanic men; and to 1 in 3 for African American men.

. . .

Simply stated, incarceration in America is concentrated among African American men. While 1 in every 87 white males ages 18 to 64 is incarcerated and the number for similarly-aged Hispanic males is 1 in 36, for black men it is 1 in 12.”). Incarceration rates are even starker for 20-to-34-year-old men without a high school diploma or GED: 1 in 8 White males in this demographic group is incarcerated, compared to 1 in 14 Hispanic males, and 1 in 3 Black males.

. . . .

Based on a state-by-state examination of incarceration rates in 2005, African Americans were incarcerated at a rate 5.6 times higher than Whites, and 7 states had a Black-to-White ratio of incarceration that was 10 to1. In 2010, Black men had an imprisonment rate that was nearly 7 times higher than White men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men.

In addition, the EEOC also expresses a concern of which many of us who regularly work in this area are aware: public criminal records are often incomplete and sometimes even inaccurate. (This has often led to me helping a client track down the disposition of arrests and charges through court and other records to confirm information provided by the applicant and/or employee).

Recent studies have found that a significant number of state and federal criminal record databases include incomplete criminal records.

• A 2011 study by the DOJ/BJS reported that, as of 2010, many state criminal history record repositories still had not recorded the final dispositions for a significant number of arrests.

• A 2006 study by the DOJ/BJS found that only 50% of arrest records in the FBI’s III database were associated with a final disposition.

Additionally, reports have documented that criminal records may be inaccurate.

. . . . Another report found that criminal background checks may produce inaccurate results because criminal records may lack “unique” information or because of “misspellings, clerical errors or intentionally inaccurate identification information provided by search subjects who wish to avoid discovery of their prior criminal activities.”

One study cited by the EEOC and conducted by the Department of Justice found “that in a sample of 82,601 employment applicants, 4,562 of these individuals were inaccurately indicated by a “name check” to have criminal records, which represents approximately 5.5% of the overall sample.”

It is troubling that the EEOC seems to imply that the guilt of the convicted individual is irrelevant to its disparate impact analysis and that conviction records are more indicative of racism than a legal determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt upon which an employer is entitled to rely. Nonetheless, it recognizes that “record of a conviction will usually serve as sufficient evidence that a person engaged in particular conduct, given the procedural safeguards associated with trials and guilty pleas.” However, it “recommends” that employers stop asking about criminal convictions on job applications and reserve this inquiry to the latter stages of the employment process based on the possibility that criminal records will be inaccurate and fail to reflect, among other things, expungements. Moreover, it also recommends (but does not require in all circumstances) that the employer conduct an “individualized assessment” of the circumstances surrounding the conviction, such as “notice to the individual that he has been screened out because of a criminal conviction; an opportunity for the individual to demonstrate that the exclusion should not be applied due to his particular circumstances; and consideration by the employer as to whether the additional information provided by the individual warrants an exception to the exclusion and shows that the policy as applied is not job related and consistent with business necessity.”

In addition, the EEOC cites a 1975 Eighth Circuit decision finding that a blanket exclusion of anyone convicted of any crime violated Title VII and implies that a 2007 summary judgment -- for a Third Circuit employer which excluded as paratransit drivers anyone convicted of a violent felony -- was sustainable only because of statistical evidence which the employer produced concerning recidivism. If the EEOC finds that an employer is excluding candidates based on a criminal conviction, it may consider that exclusion – and the employer’s reputation for excluding convicted criminals -- to violate Title VII.

An employer’s evidence of a racially balanced workforce will not be enough to disprove disparate impact. In Connecticut v. Teal, the Supreme Court held that a “bottom line” racial balance in the workforce does not preclude employees from establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact; nor does it provide employers with a defense. The issue is whether the policy or practice deprives a disproportionate number of Title VII-protected individuals of employment opportunities.

. . . . , in determining disparate impact, the Commission will assess the probative value of an employer’s applicant data. As the Supreme Court stated in Dothard v. Rawlinson, an employer’s “application process might itself not adequately reflect the actual potential applicant pool since otherwise qualified people might be discouraged from applying” because of an alleged discriminatory policy or practice. Therefore, the Commission will closely consider whether an employer has a reputation in the community for excluding individuals with criminal records. Relevant evidence may come from ex-offender employment programs, individual testimony, employer statements, evidence of employer recruitment practices, or publicly posted notices, among other sources. The Commission will determine the persuasiveness of such evidence on a case-by-case basis. (italics added for emphasis).

. . . .

[Even where an employer shows that its policy and practice is job related and consistent with business necessity], a Title VII plaintiff may still prevail by demonstrating that there is a less discriminatory “alternative employment practice” that serves the employer’s legitimate goals as effectively as the challenged practice but that the employer refused to adopt.

The EEOC asserts that many “targeted exclusions” – “an employer policy or practice of excluding individuals from particular positions for specified criminal conduct within a defined time period” -- are likely to survive a disparate treatment analysis (even in the absence of a validation study concerning recidivism or a federal statute providing a safe harbor). Moreover, although not always necessary to survive a disparate treatment challenge, the EEOC also advocates an “individualized assessment,” ( i.e., where “ an employer informs the individual that he may be excluded because of past criminal conduct; provides an opportunity to the individual to demonstrate that the exclusion does not properly apply to him; and considers whether the individual’s additional information shows that the policy as applied is not job related and consistent with business necessity”). Among other things, an individualized assessment may reveal the existence of an error in the criminal record.

What will be troublesome for most employers is that the EEOC does not consider compliance with a state statute or local ordinance that requires the exclusion of certain individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes to be a defense to potential Title VII liability. Of course, if the EEOC finds that the exclusion required by the statute or ordinance to be reasonably targeted, job related and consistent with business necessity, it may not challenge the employer’s compliance with it.

Although the EEOC does not believe that an arrest record by itself should exclude anyone from employment, it recognizes that “[a]n arrest, however, may in some circumstances trigger an inquiry into whether the conduct underlying the arrest justifies an adverse employment action.” As an example, the EEOC discusses a situation where a school employee is accused of inappropriate sexual contact with children. The School may conduct its own investigation following the employee’s arrest and terminate the employee based on its own conclusions and policies regardless of whether the employee is charged or convicted (based on a guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard).

In light of the EEOC’s new enforcement guidance, employers should examine their employment policies concerning background checks.

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: Disparate Impact Claims Accrue with Each New Employer Action Regardless of When Policy Was Adopted

This morning, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII disparate impact claims accrue each time the employer uses the facially neutral employment practice which has a disparate impact on a protected class. Lewis v. City of Chicago. No. 08-974 (5/24/10). Accordingly, the class action could proceed with its disparate impact discrimination claims even though the earliest Charge of Discrimination filed by a class member was filed with the EEOC more than 300 days after the challenged policy was adopted and announced and even more than 300 days after it had first been applied because the employer had used the disputed employment practice on other occasions within 300 days of when the Charge had been filed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Scalia noted that to have held otherwise would mean that an employer could indefinitely utilize a discriminatory policy if it were lucky enough not to be challenged within the first 300 days.

According to the Court's opinion, the City of Chicago administered a civil service test in 1995 to select firefighters. In January 1996, it announced that applicants who scored below 65 failed and would not be considered further and that even though applicants with scores between 66 and 88 passed and, thus were qualified, they would not be considered for vacancies until all of the "well qualified" applicants who scored 89 or better were hired or given further consideration. No applicant filed a Charge of Discrimination to challenge the City's stated policy. In May 1996, the City hired its first class of firefighters from the 1995 list based on the policy announced in January 1996 and, again, no applicant filed a Charge of Discrimination to challenge the City's action within 300 days. The City then continued to process candidates off the 1995 list for six years until it ran out of "well qualified" applicants and began processing "qualified" candidates. In March 1997, the first Charge of Discrimination was filed by a qualified applicant who was passed over by the City's January 1996 process, the EEOC completed its investigation in July 1998 and a class action lawsuit was filed later that year. The trial court denied summary judgment to the City on the issue of timeliness while the plaintiff were pursuing a continuing violation theory to avoid the 300-day limitations period issue. There was then an eight-day bench trial which found in favor of the plaintiffs. The City apparently stipulated that the adoption of the 89-point cut off had a severe disparate impact on African-Americans. (There was no evidence presented that the City's use of the policy had a disparate impact each or any time it was utilized.) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the trial court judgment on the grounds that the City's hiring decisions were merely the affect of a past decision which the plaintiffs had failed to challenge within the 300-day limitations period. The Supreme Court reversed.

Employment decisions may be challenged as intentional discrimination (i.e., disparate treatment) or unintentional discrimination (i.e., disparate impact). The second theory began in the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 431 (1971). Congress later amended Title VII at 42 U.S.C. § 2003-2(k):

"(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if—

"(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity . . . ."

Thus, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie disparate impact claim by showing that the employer "uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact" on one of the prohibited bases.

Title VII requires that a Charge of Discrimination be filed with the EEOC within 300 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." §2000e–5(e)(1).
In disparate treatment cases, that "practice" is when the employment action is deliberately taken with discriminatory intent. After the passage of 300 days, employees cannot later sue for the current affects of past discriminatory decisions under the disparate treatment theory. However, in disparate impact cases, no discriminatory intent is required. Thus, in disparate impact the question is generally not whether the lawsuit is timely, but whether a valid disparate impact claim can be alleged at all. In other words, if the plaintiff can show that any employment action taken in the prior 300 days has a disparate impact, then the claim can proceed regardless of when the employment practice was first adopted or utilized. In this case, the City's practice of excluding candidates with a score between 66 and 88 from further consideration constituted an employment practice and, apparently, it was stipulated that it had an adverse impact on the plaintiffs on account of their race.

While the Court had sympathy with the plight of the City (and all other employers) that its decision to adopt the policy became lawful when it was not timely challenged, the Court concluded that "it does not follow that no new violation occurred—and no new claims could arise—when the City implemented that decision down the road. If petitioners could prove that the City" use[d]" the "practice" that "causes a disparate impact," they could prevail.

Granted, "[e]mployers may face new disparate-impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years. Evidence essential to their business-necessity defenses might be unavailable (or in the case of witnesses' memories, unreliable) by the time the later suits are brought. And affected employees and prospective employees may not even know they have claims if they are unaware the employer is still applying the disputed practice." However, the alternative was even less satisfactory:

[I]f an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact. Equitable tolling or estoppel may allow some affected employees or applicants to sue, but many others will be left out in the cold. Moreover, the City's reading may induce plaintiffs aware of the danger of delay to file charges upon the announcement of a hiring practice, before they have any basis for believing it will produce a disparate impact.

The case was remanded to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether a new trial was necessary and whether the relief ordered by the trial court should be modified (as stipulated by the parties) to exclude consideration of the first round of hiring decisions which were made more than 300 days before the filing of the first Charge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Rejects Disparate Impact Sex Discrimination Claims of Employees Laid Off in RIF by Columbus Moving Company.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of sex discrimination claims brought by four terminated female employees who alleged that their employer’s reduction in force disproportionately affected women by focusing the RIF on predominately female departments. Shollenbarger v. Planes Moving & Storage, No. 06-4454 (10/21/08). In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that the RIF resulted in the termination of twelve women and only one man even though 53% of the employer’s total workforce consisted of women. At one point in the Court’s opinion, it noted that “the odds of selecting 12 women from the [employer’s] entire non-management labor pool is 0.1%.” Nonetheless, because the employer articulated a legitimate business justification for focusing its RIF on the predominately female departments, “statistically, 12 is the most likely number of women from this pool, as anything less would diverge from the basic statistical probability. Therefore, this statistical result does not demonstrate disparity, much less a significant disparity that can be connected causally to the challenged employment action.”

According to the Court, “[p]rior to the RIF, [the employer’s] non-management workforce comprised 120 women and 86 men, split into several departments. Management
comprised 18 women and 35 men. So, there were 259 total employees (53% female).” The employer then focused its RIF on certain departments: “Customer Service; Credit & Collections; Operations; and Billing & Rating. Of the 101 total employees in these departments, 90 were women and 11 were men, meaning that the departments were 89% female. Meanwhile, [the employer] excluded from the RIF its other departments: Warehouse; Movers & Packers; and Drivers. These departments consisted of 30 women and 75 men (105 total), meaning that they were only 29% female. [The employer] delegated to the individual department managers the decision of which employee(s) from their departments to lay off, using criteria of conduct, performance, reliability, and seniority. Ultimately, [the employer] laid off 12 women and one man.”

“The plaintiffs first challenged [the employer’s] ‘particular employment practice’ of selecting only certain (predominantly female) departments for the RIF. . . . The plaintiffs contend that the statistics . . . show a disparity and we agree. At this step in the analysis — the prima facie step —[the employer’s] reasons for selecting certain departments is immaterial; the only questions at this point are whether there was an identifiable disparity and, if so, whether the challenged employment practice (i.e., the selection of certain departments) could have caused the disparity. Based on a rudimentary statistical analysis, we answer both in the affirmative. If [the employer] had randomly selected one employee for layoff from its entire non-management labor pool (i.e., all departments), it would have had a 58% chance (120/206) of selecting a woman. By targeting only certain departments, the likelihood of selecting a woman increased to 89% (90/101). More telling is that the odds of selecting 12 women from the affected departments is 23%, whereas the odds of selecting 12 women from the entire non-management labor pool is 0.1%. We find this to be a sufficient disparity to demonstrate a disparate impact from the decision.”

Because the plaintiffs met their prima facie burden, “ the burden shifts and [the court] must consider whether [the employer] set forth a legitimate business justification. [The employer] explained that its declining business necessitated the RIF and that some departments were affected more that others; specifically, those employees who dealt most directly with customers were the most affected. In addition, the predominantly male, unaffected departments were staffed largely with seasonal workers (typically high school and college students) who had already left at the end of the peak summer season. And, there was no decline in the business being done by the warehouse. We conclude that the challenged employment practice of subjecting only certain departments to the RIF had a legitimate business justification.”

“Because [the employer] clearly met its burden of showing a legitimate business justification, the burden shifts back to the plaintiffs to show that “other tests or selection devices, without a similarly undesirable . . . effect, would also serve the employer’s legitimate [business] interest.” The plaintiffs argued that “there wasn’t any exploration of alternatives to these layoffs at all.” But, this is a misunderstanding of the standard and, hence, completely irrelevant. plaintiffs were obligated to prove equally effective alternatives and — although they offer alternatives to a RIF in general — they offer no alternative to subjecting only the particular, selected departments to the RIF. The purpose of this step is not to second guess the employer’s business decisions, it is to show — by pointing to obviously ignored alternatives — that the “particular employment practice” was actually pretext for discrimination.” Once the decision to focus the RIF on certain departments, the statistical anomalies disappear: “The RIF was 92% female (12/13), which is perfectly consistent with a random selection from an 89% pool. Statistically, 12 is the most likely number of women from this pool, as anything less would diverge from the basic statistical probability. Therefore, this statistical result does not demonstrate disparity, much less a significant disparity that can be connected causally to the challenged employment action.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0631n-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.

Sixth Circuit Dismisses ADEA Claims by Employees Who Claimed They Were Terminated For Budget Reasons Rather than For Violating Confidentiality Policy.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims by two employees who alleged that they had been terminated on account of their age because the new CEO had sought to increase turnover among (more expensive) employees with more seniority so that he could hire less expensive, newer employees. Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp., No. 07-6414 (10/21/08). The plaintiffs admitted to the conduct which the hospital explained motivated it to terminate their employment, but the plaintiffs denied their conduct was the actual reason for their termination. Indeed, the court was sympathetic that the plaintiffs had not actually violated patient confidentiality as alleged, but still gave more weight to the hospital’s argument that it held an honest belief that the plaintiffs had violated its HIPAA policy based on a thorough investigation by the human resources department. In any event, the court found that there was no evidence that the hospital’s business strategy to reduce its budget for employee compensation had a disparate impact on older employees and did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination.

The plaintiffs were terminated for violating the hospital’s HIPAA policy when one of the plaintiffs obtained the x-rays of her own granddaughter (at the parent’s request) from the other plaintiff without having a signed authorization from the parent of the granddaughter. The grandmother plaintiff had been told by another employee that the parent’s signature was mandatory, but there was no written policy governing the situation. Moreover, the plaintiff grandparent then forged the parent’s signature on the authorization form, back-dated the form and placed it in the medical record (which may have shown knowledge of her own guilt in violating an unwritten policy). Both employees were terminated for violation of the HIPAA policy, which the hospital considered to be a major offense.

The Court acknowledged that the hospital’s actions in this case were unduly harsh: “the facts of this case are not a “textbook example” of a privacy violation for which a hospital would usually take such serious action against its long-time employees. The record shows that [plaintiff] was not only the biological grandmother of the patient, but also was involved in her care and guardianship (although [plaintiff] was admittedly not [the granddaughter’s] legal guardian). Moreover, [the hospital] does not dispute that [the mother], as [the granddaughter’s] mother and legal guardian, in fact gave [plaintiff] verbal authorization to retrieve the x-rays. The plaintiffs have thus undoubtedly pointed to a weakness in the Hospital’s policy, if for no other reason than that this case highlights the potential ambiguity caused by the lack of detail in the employee manual’s prohibition against an unauthorized release. But the fact that the Hospital would benefit from developing a more detailed policy on this issue does not mean that [the plaintiffs] have succeeded in creating a genuine issue of material fact about whether HHC’s stated reason for terminating them was a pretext designed to hide age-based discrimination. We thus agree with the Hospital that, in determining if the plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext, we should consider not whether [the plaintiffs] actually breached patient confidentiality, but rather whether the Hospital had an honestly held belief that they had committed a Group I offense.”

To support their age discrimination claims, the plaintiffs produced evidence that the hospital’s new CEO sought to increase employee turnover among more senior (and presumably more expensive) employees. According to the court, the hospital’s budget manager testified “one of [the CEO’s] strategies was to terminate employees based on seniority to facilitate the hiring of new, less costly employees. In fact, [the CEO] increased the annual turnover rate from 2% to 28%. [The budget manager] did not know whether the cost-cutting measures had a disproportionate effect on older employees, but she said that [the CEO’s] focus was at all times on improving HHC’s financial situation.” In any event, the Court of Appeals found that this testimony did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination.

“Indeed, the Supreme Court in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), has specifically held that the strategies discussed by [the budget manager] are permissible methods for employers to cut costs: When the employer’s decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears. This is true even if the motivating factor is correlated with age . . . . On average, an older employee has had more years in the work force than a younger employee, and thus may well have accumulated more years of service with a particular employer. Yet an employee’s age is analytically distinct from his years of service. An employee who is younger than 40, and therefore outside the class of older workers as defined by the ADEA, see 29 U.S.C. § 631(a), may have worked for a particular employer his entire career, while an older worker may have been newly hired. Because age and years of service are analytically distinct, an employer can take account of one while ignoring the other, and thus it is incorrect to say that a decision based on years of service is necessarily ‘age based.’”

Moreover, the court found insufficient evidence that the CEO’s budget practice had a disparate impact on older workers either. The hospital’s expert produced evidence that the hospital’s increased turnover did not result in a disproportionate reduction in the number of employees over the age of 40. “ Nor is the plaintiffs’ disparate-impact claim salvaged by the allegation that the number of terminations of those over 40 years of age increased from 14.3% to 62.5% of all terminations between 2002 and 2003. As the district court noted, this data is not statistically significant because the pools from which those percentages were drawn were very small—i.e., there were only 21 terminations in 2002 and 16 terminations in 2003.”

Finally, “[t]he plaintiffs, however, have failed to satisfy their burden of isolating and identifying a specific employment practice that disproportionately impacts employees who are at least 40 years old. As we have already explained, the plaintiffs have at best alleged that HHC desired to reduce costs associated with its highly paid workforce, including those costs associated with employees with greater seniority. But the plaintiffs have not established that this corporate desire evolved into an identifiable practice that disproportionately harms workers who are at least 40 years old. Because Allen and Slone have simply “point[ed] to a generalized policy,” as opposed to specific practice, they have therefore failed to raise a genuine question of material fact with respect to their disparate impact claim.”

The plaintiffs also produced evidence that a the supervisor of a hospital contractor told one of its employees that the employee should start looking for another job because it looked as though all of the older employees would be let go. The court also rejected this as direct evidence that the plaintiffs were terminated on account of their age because the solitary statement was not made by their supervisors and was, instead, made in connection with another employer.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0381p-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: Employer Bears Burden of Proving Disparate Impact of Facially Neutral Factors Was Based on a Reasonable Factor Other Than Age

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court held that the employer bears the both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion in raising as an affirmative defense to an ADEA disparate impact claim that its decision was based on a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA). Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., No. 06-1505. In Meacham, the employer conducted a reduction in force (after more than 100 employees accepted voluntary buyouts) in which 30 of the 31 involuntarily reduced positions were held by an employee over the age of 40. Managers had been instructed to evaluate their staffs by four factors: years of service, "performance," "flexibility," and "critical skills." Twenty-eight of the involuntarily reduced employees sued, raising both disparate-treatment (i.e., intent) and disparate-impact (i.e., result) claims under the ADEA and state law, alleging that the defendant employer "designed and implemented its workforce reduction process to eliminate older employees and that, regardless of intent, the process had a discriminatory impact on ADEA-protected employees." In the ensuring class action, the plaintiffs’ expert opined “that results so skewed according to age could rarely occur by chance;4 and that the scores for "flexibility" and "criticality," over which managers had the most discretionary judgment, had the firmest statistical ties to the outcomes.”

In construing the ADEA statute, the Court recognized that the RFOA defense was listed along another affirmative defense for bona fide occupational qualification. The employer has always held the burden of proof and persuasion for the BFOQ defense. Similarly, under the FLSA and EPA, the employer has born the burden of proof and persuasion on the “reasonable factor other than sex” affirmative defense. While it might seem reasonable to assume a different interpretation of the burden in a disparate treatment case – since age is a factor in the prima facie case – and the RFOA defense seems superfluous, in the disparate treatment case (where age discrimination exists in fact when the unlawful treatment is not based on age), the RFOA defense is particularly applicable:

“[I]n the typical disparate-impact case, the employer's practice is "without respect to age" and its adverse impact (though "because of age") is "attributable to a nonage factor"; so action based on a "factor other than age" is the very premise for disparate-impact liability in the first place, not a negation of it or a defense to it. The RFOA defense in a disparate-impact case, then, is not focused on the asserted fact that a non-age factor was at work; we assume it was. The focus of the defense is that the factor relied upon was a "reasonable" one for the employer to be using. Reasonableness is a justification categorically distinct from the factual condition "because of age" and not necessarily correlated with it in any particular way: a reasonable factor may lean more heavily on older workers, as against younger ones, and an unreasonable factor might do just the opposite.”

“Here is what is so strange: as the Government says, "[i]f disparate-impact plaintiffs have already established that a challenged practice is a pretext for intentional age discrimination, it makes little sense then to ask whether the discriminatory practice is based on reasonable factors other than age." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26 (emphasis in original). Conversely, proving the reasonableness defense would eliminate much of the point a plaintiff would have had for showing alternatives in the first place: why make the effort to show alternative practices with a less discriminatory effect (and besides, how would that prove pretext?), when everyone knows that the choice of a practice relying on a "reasonable" non-age factor is good enough to avoid liability?14 At the very least, developing the reasonableness defense would be substantially redundant with the direct contest over the force of the business justification, especially when both enquiries deal with the same, narrowly specified practice. It is not very fair to take the remark about Wards Cove in City of Jackson as requiring such a wasteful and confusing structure of proof.”

Regardless of the strangeness of the result, the Court reiterated that the plaintiff still bears the burden of producing enough evidence to show that age discrimination has resulted from a specific employment practice which is responsible for statistical disparities against older workers. In the final analysis, the Court acknowledges that “there is no denying that putting employers to the work of persuading factfinders that their choices are reasonable makes it harder and costlier to defend than if employers merely bore the burden of production; nor do we doubt that this will sometimes affect the way employers do business with their employees.” Moreover, “as the outcome for the employer in City of Jackson shows, "it is not surprising that certain employment criteria that are routinely used may be reasonable despite their adverse impact on older workers as a group."

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1505.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.