Sixth Circuit Affirms Verdict for Successful FMLA Plaintiff

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict for a successful FMLA plaintiff in the amount of $31,000 for compensatory damages as well as liquidated damages in an equal amount, court costs, pre and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees in the amount of $77,233 (i.e., more than the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery).  Clements v. Prudential Protective Services LLC, No. 15-1603 (6^th Cir. 8-3-16).  As earlier reported here, the plaintiff former security guard had been laid off following her 2009 maternity leave and ultimately filed suit under the FMLA.  The Court rejected the employer’s arguments about unfair rulings at trial.  It also refused to reduce the attorneys’ fees by more than the 10% already reduced by the trial court to address the plaintiff’s unsuccessful claims.   Finally, it also rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s 30% contingency fee agreement prevented the attorneys from recovering fees as a prevailing party.

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.FM

Sixth Circuit Affirms $300K Jury Verdict in Same Sex Hostile Work Environment Case Despite Employer Taking Disciplinary Action within a Few Weeks

Last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a $300K jury verdict on a same-sex hostile work environment claim.  Smith v. Rock-Tenn Services, Inc. No. 15-5534 (6^th Cir. 2-10-16).   After the district court had granted summary judgment to the employer on the retaliation and constructive discharge claims, the jury trial focused on the male plaintiff’s claim of offensive touching by a co-worker, the employer’s slow response to his complaint, the employer’s failure to consult the co-worker’s personnel file to discover evidence of prior similar complaints and disciplinary action, and its failure to immediately separate the victim from the harasser, and otherwise ineffectively respond to the plaintiff’s concerns.  Although the plaintiff only had three interactions with the harasser, he and management were aware of other similar incidents.  The employer delayed 10 days to initiate an informal investigation and only suspended the harasser, despite threatening to fire him just a few months earlier for engaging in similar misconduct.  The decisionmaker had not been informed about, and did not consult his personnel file concerning, prior disciplinary actions or similar incidents.  Further, although the employer took disciplinary action within a few weeks, it never separated the victim from the harasser, which so distressed the plaintiff that he left and never returned to work.  The Court found that the jury was reasonable in finding harassment to exist and that the employer’s response was inadequate under the circumstances.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff received the employer’s employee handbook and sexual harassment policy during his orientation shortly after he was hired in August 2010.  The employer’s policy encouraged employees to attempt to work matters out between themselves before involving management.  In December of 2011, plaintiff observed the harasser grab a co-worker’s buttocks. A few months later, he then slapped plaintiff’s bottom when he walked by, causing the plaintiff to point at him and tell him to keep his hands off. 

The following week, the harasser grabbed the plaintiff’s bottom so hard that it hurt, which resulted in the plaintiff grabbing his harm and telling him that if he didn’t stop, someone would get hurt.  Plaintiff did not report either incident to management.  In early June, while the plaintiff was bent over picking up boxes, the harasser hunched over him and engaged in grinding.  This resulted in the plaintiff grabbing him by the throat and sharing a few choice words.  The harasser later apologized, but the plaintiff was so upset that he went home.

This final incident was brought to the attention of a few co-workers, one of whom told the plant superintendent.  The plaintiff told his female supervisor on the following Monday and learned that this had not been an isolated incident.  The plant superintendent questioned the plaintiff about it that Monday and said that nothing would be done until the operations manager returned from vacation on Friday. 

The plaintiff was sent back to the same work area as the harasser.   By this time, the plaintiff was so upset that he kept making mistakes in his work.  When he and the harasser were sent together for a hearing test, the plaintiff had become very angry.  Even though there were no other incidents with the harasser, the plaintiff suffered an anxiety attack within 10 days of the last incident.  He then requested medical leave to seek counselling from the emotional distress he suffered from the unaddressed harassment.   His request was granted.

Upon receiving the request for medical leave – 10 days after the incident had been reported, the operations manager spoke with a few employees and supervisors about the incident, but no interview notes or witness statements were taken.  The entire investigation was reflected on a single page of handwritten notes.  The harasser claimed that the plaintiff had backed into him and there were no other eyewitnesses.   There were some indications that similar incidents had happened before, but no follow up interviews were conducted. 

Although the superintendent, supervisor and human resources recommended that the harasser be terminated, the employer’s general manager only suspended him for two days.  This was supposedly without pay, but the harasser testified that he was paid.   The General Manager later admitted that he had not sought or considered the harasser’s prior disciplinary history or similar incidents. 

In fact, the superintendent and operations manager involved in this investigation were aware that the harasser had been warned in writing in March 2011 not to touch other employees or he would be terminated. He had touched a male co-worker standing at a urinal and was written up for harassment-horseplay.  Again, no witness statements had been taken.  The harassment policy had been reviewed with the harasser and the documentation had been placed in his personnel file. Human Resources had also been involved in an undocumented similar incident.    Yet, no one told the General Manager, who was in charge of disciplinary actions.

The plaintiff never returned to work and spent the next 18 months taking medication for anxiety and insomnia.  After exhausting his short-term disability, he was diagnosed with PTSD.  The harasser was not fired until July 2014 after he admitted during his deposition to mooning and/or touching other men in the workplace.   All of his misconduct had been directed against men.  There was apparently no evidence that he had ever been inappropriate with a female employee.

While the employer attempted to argue that the harasser’s conduct had simply been horseplay, the plaintiff convinced the jury that it was harassment by showing that only men were exposed to offensive touching.  “[T]he jury apparently found that pinching and slapping someone on the buttocks or grinding one’s pelvis into another’s behind goes far beyond horseplay.”  The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff essentially worked in a gender segregated department (rather than a mixed-sex environment) because 30% of the workforce were women (including the plaintiff’s supervisor) and women passed through the department regularly.  The Court also refused to require the plaintiff to prove more than the absence of offensive conduct towards women in order to prevail on a same-sex harassment claim.  

The Court also rejected the employer’s arguments that the harasser’s three interactions with the plaintiff were not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment because the plaintiff’s case could also rely on other incidents by the harasser which the plaintiff observed or learned about during his employment.  In addition, offensive touching is considered to be more severe than verbal insults or comments.  “’[W]hether harassment was so severe and pervasive as to constitute a hostile work environment to be ‘quintessentially a question of fact.’”  In particular, the Court found that the jury’s conclusion was not unreasonable based on the evidence presented.

 

The Court also found the employer’s response to be inadequate because there was documentation of recent prior similar incidents and disciplinary actions involving the harasser, but that information was not shared with decisionmakers or followed-up in any deliberate fashion.  The employer’s policy of taking witness statements and preparing a formal report were not followed.  

To impose liability on an employer for the harassing conduct of a plaintiff’s co-worker, a “plaintiff must show that the employer’s response to the plaintiff’s complaints ‘manifest[ed] indifference or unreasonableness in light of the facts the employer knew or should have known.’”  . . . A plaintiff must therefore show that the employer “knew or should have known of the harassment” and “failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action.”  “Generally, a response is adequate if it is reasonably calculated to end the harassment.”  . . . Appropriate steps “may include promptly initiating an investigation.”  . . . Even separating the harasser and victim immediately may not be enough without further action on the employer’s part.

Although the employer argued that the steps it took were clearly prompt and appropriate under the circumstances, the employer “fails to grasp that what it failed to do is just as important.”

In this case, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Defendant’s total inaction for ten days, where Defendant knew that Leonard had touched Plaintiff, and had told Leonard that further complaints would result in termination, was unreasonable.  Defendant did not separate the two men, suspend Leonard pending an investigation, or initiate its investigation in a timely manner; a reasonable jury could find that the failure to take any of these steps or others rendered its response neither prompt nor appropriate in light of what it knew or should have known regarding Leonard’s prior misconduct.

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

Ohio Appellate Court Affirms $250K Jury Verdict for Plaintiff Terminated on Account of Perceived Disability

At the end of last month, a unanimous Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of a home health care nurse who had been terminated in July 2011 because she had been prescribed and was wearing a fentanyl patch to cope with pain.  Cavins v. S&B Health Care, Inc., 2015-Ohio-4119.  The court rejected the employer’s challenge to the trial court’s failure to bi-furcate the trial on punitive damages because that alleged error had been waived and was harmless when the jury did not award punitive damages.  It also found that the jury’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence.  The Court found that there was clear evidence that the employer viewed her as being disabled by a drug addiction because it disciplined and suspended her for wearing the patch pending a release from her physician, told her that they perceived her wearing a pain patch as a liability and two executives mentioned it in connection with her termination decision.  With such direct evidence of discrimination, she was not required to prove pretext, but had done so.  The employer could not rely on an “honest belief” defense when it conducted no investigation of the supposed HIPAA violation leading to her termination.  Similarly, the jury could disbelieve the employer based on its disparate treatment of the plaintiff in disciplinary warnings which were also not supported by its written policies.  The employer also failed to prove an accommodation constituted an undue hardship or a direct threat.   The court refused to find judicial estoppel from the plaintiff’s pursuit of a workers’ compensation claim and similarly refused to deduct her workers’ compensation recovery from her back or front pay award based on an application of the collateral source rule to deter discriminatory employers.  Finally, the court found the plaintiff could recover emotional distress damages without expert testimony or evidence of a physical injury.

Background.  According to the court’s lengthy opinion (which necessarily construed the facts in the prevailing plaintiff’s favor), the plaintiff had received above average performance evaluations in the two years prior to her termination.  Her evaluations and the company’s policy manual required that she turn in reports on a weekly basis. However, the evaluation had a handwritten “daily” inserted, which the plaintiff implied was done after her termination.  Her lowest scores in her performance evaluations concerned the inconsistent timeliness of her documentation.  In late 2010, she filed a workers compensation claim based on a deterioration of her arms and wrists from patient charting and the company ultimately arranged for a voice-activated computer to assist with her documentation.  Her supervisor sent her a holiday card to get some rest and not burn out.  While normal full-time employment was 20-25 patients/week, she generally had a much heavier workload, covering for other employees and working every holiday since she was hired.  For example, she saw 13 patients on July 4 shortly before she was fired.  In early January, her car was hit from behind while she was travelling to see a patient.   Although she was in pain, she continued to work because she could not afford to take time off.  In late May, she was given a written warning for untimely documentation and was reminded in writing that her documentation was due at 8 a.m. on Monday mornings (i.e., weekly).   She responded that she would try harder, but was in pain. On June 2, she was involved in another car accident while her daughter was driving.  After seeing to her daughter’s broken arm, she went to a different hospital the next day and claimed to have notified her employer (which denied knowing about this second accident).

On July 1, the plaintiff was prescribed a fentanyl patch for her pain.  There were no complaints about her performance after she began wearing the patch.   She requested and received approval to take July 8 off work for her birthday.  She subsequently emailed her supervisor that she had found others to cover for her on July 9 and 10 as well.  In the interim, a co-worker notified a supervisor that the plaintiff sounded impaired on the telephone and admitted to wearing a morphine patch.  This inaccurate information was relayed to a vice president, Human Resources, and the company’s lawyer.  The following day, another employee also claimed that she had slurred speech, and the plaintiff later explained that she had been up all night trying to catch up with her patient documentation and had not been wearing the patch at the time.  (Her all-nighter was confirmed in an email she sent at 6:33 a.m. to her manager).  

When the plaintiff reported to work on July 11, she was given three written warnings and suspended.  The first written warning was dated on July 7 and was for failing to notify management about her pain patch, even though the cited policy only prohibited the use of illegal drugs, alcohol or control substances which could affect employee performance or safety.  She was not permitted to return to work until her physician confirmed in writing that she could safely drive and perform her job.  The second warning was also dated July 7 and concerned the tardy submission of reports, which she had been submitting on Sunday night or early Monday morning instead of daily.  It reflected a performance plan and threatened to terminate her if she did not improve.  She refused to sign it since her most recent warning had only required her to submit weekly reports and she was not yet late with the reports from the prior week as alleged.   The third written warning was for failing to use the proper form to request time off for July 8.  However, the plaintiff denied knowing about such a policy or forms and the company never produced a copy of any such policy or forms at trial (which strongly suggests that they do not exist).  There was evidence that other employees had requested and received time off without such forms and never been disciplined.  The plaintiff returned to work on July 18 after her physician released her without restrictions.  Nonetheless, she was told that she was a liability while she wore her pain patch.  She subsequently offered to stop wearing it if the company and its attorney remained concerned, but her email received no response.  The next day, the company claimed that an anonymous employee told it that the plaintiff had secretly contacted a former patient.  Without any investigation, the decision was made to terminate the plaintiff.  At trial, the employer was unable to identify any employees or patients with knowledge that the plaintiff had improperly contacted them.   They arrived at her home (because she had called off sick) but she did not answer the door.  When the plaintiff emailed her supervisor that she thought that she would be off sick for less than two weeks, she was notified that she had been terminated and an employee was sent to pick up her equipment.  The company executives testified to different reasons for her termination, but two of them referred to her fentanyl patch. 

The plaintiff ultimately produced a physician note that should return to work on August 1, but in light of her termination did not work for two years.  During workers compensation litigation, the plaintiff received her termination documentation for the first time and it listed only a HIPAA violation (for contacting a former patient) and nothing about the fentanyl patch.  She returned to work on modified duty in 2014 for another employer.  In the meantime, she filed suit concerning her termination.  After trial, a jury awarded her $125,000 in back pay, $75,000 for front pay and $50,000 in compensatory damages, but denied punitive damages.  The employer appealed.

Failure to bifurcate was harmless error.  The appellate court rejected the employer’s argument that the trial should have been bifurcated because it was waived at trial (when the attorneys failed to have the jury instruction conference transcribed and included in the record) and any error was harmless in that the jury did not award punitive damages.

Direct Evidence that Perceived Disability Motivated Termination Decision.  The Court found substantial evidence that the plaintiff had been perceived as disabled on account of wearing her fentanyl patch and that the jury was in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.  It noted that Ohio law and the ADAA only require evidence that the employer views an employee as impaired and does not require evidence that the employer perceived that impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity.   Accordingly, when the employer took adverse action against the plaintiff on account of the fact that she sometimes wore a fentanyl patch to treat the pain she suffered from two automobile accidents, it constituted direct evidence that the employer perceived her as disabled under Ohio law:

[The plaintiff] was taking measures (prescription medication) to correct or mitigate an underlying physical condition – injuries caused by one or more auto accidents. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude that Cavins was perceived as disabled within the meaning of R.C. 4112.02(A)(1) and R.C. 4112.01(A)(13).

Indeed, the jury was not even required to infer that the plaintiff’s impairment played a part in the decision to terminate her because two of the company’s executives admitted as much.

No judicial estoppel from pursuing workers’ compensation claim.  In a rather confusing discussion, the court addressed the issue of whether the plaintiff had been qualified to perform her duties immediately prior to her termination, particularly in light of the fact that she did not work for two years following her termination and had submitted documentation that she had been unable to work because of her workers’ compensation injury.  First, the court noted that she had produced return-to-work notes on July 18 (and actually worked a few days thereafter before getting sick again) and had been released to return to work on August 1 (after her termination).  Second, the plaintiff also testified that her duties did not require her to lift patients.   Third, the court rejected the concept of judicial estoppel to preclude the plaintiff from contending that she could work (in order to recover back and front pay) while she was contending in different proceedings that she was entitled to workers’ compensation because she was unable to work.  The court did so because she had never made any representations to the BWC under oath (as required for judicial estoppel to apply).  Moreover, the court found that she was qualified to perform her job at the time she was terminated (in light of two medical releases) and could have continued to do perform her duties with a reasonable accommodation (of wearing her fentanyl patch).

Reasonableness of accommodation.  The court found that permitting the plaintiff to wear the patch was a reasonable accommodation because the employer had indicated that she could do so if her physician confirmed that she could safely drive and perform her duties while wearing it.

Pretext Evidence Not Required.  The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff failed to show that the documented reason for terminating her – an alleged HIPAA violation and prior disciplinary history – was pretextual.  The Court found that the plaintiff was not required to prove pretext because she had produced sufficient direct evidence of discrimination when two executives admitted that her fentanyl patch was a motivating factor in her termination.  When direct evidence exists, the burden-shifting framework in cases of indirect evidence does not apply.   At that point, the employer could only prevail if it could prove undue hardship or a direct threat.  It could do neither.  In particular, its July 11 suspension of the plaintiff – until she could produce medical documentation that she could safely perform her job duties and drive – demonstrated the reasonableness of that reasonable accommodation.  The employer could not challenge the reasonableness of that accommodation upon her return to work without further investigation, which it failed to do before terminating her a few days after she returned to work.   

Pretext Proven.  In any event, the court found sufficient evidence of pretext on the record.  The plaintiff denied that she had violated HIPAA or contacted a former patient as alleged.  In contrast, the employer’s only evidence was that an anonymous employee supposedly told it of the violation.   This was not corroborated by the employee or the patient.  Accordingly, the jury was free to disregard the employer’s testimony.  Moreover, the employer could not rely on an honest belief defense because it conducted no investigation whatsoever of the anonymous tip; it did not contact any former patients or even confront the plaintiff with the allegation.  In addition, the management employees contradicted each other as to whether the fentanyl patch was a factor in the termination decision.   Finally, the fact that the plaintiff was terminated just a few days after she had been told that her wearing the fentanyl patch was a liability further undermined the legitimacy of the purported HIPAA explanation. 

With respect to the consideration of her prior disciplinary history, there was evidence to show that her disciplinary warnings were not supported by any written company policies and that she had been treated differently than other employees on those issues:

Moreover, even if one assumes that the basis for the termination included the prior disciplinary actions, there was evidence that these alleged violations were not actual violations of Black Stone policy, or that other employees were not similarly disciplined. In short, the record contains evidence that Black Stone’s actions were poorly documented, and that its policies were inaccurately and inconsistently applied. For example, although Black Stone disciplined Cavins for failing to request a day off in writing, the company failed to submit evidence of a written policy or form to this effect, and there was evidence from an employee other than Cavins that she had been allowed to submit an oral vacation request without being disciplined. Cavins also testified that she had never been required to submit a written request. Again, the jury was permitted to believe Cavins’ evidence.

The court also found the jury was entitled to disbelieve the employer about the documentation requirements.  The employer contended that she had for years been required to submit it daily, not weekly as the plaintiff contended.  She testified that July 11 was the first time she had been told it was due daily.   She was corroborated by the fact that the policy manual said weekly and her May 2011 written warning also said weekly.  The employer contended that the May 2011 warning had been a mistake and pointed to handwritten notes on her last performance evaluation referring to daily documentation.  However, the plaintiff denied that “daily” had been written on the evaluation when she received it.

The court also found that the jury was entitled to disbelieve the employer about whether the plaintiff had violated any policy by failing to report her prescribed fentanyl patch since the policy only referred to a prohibition against using illegal drugs, alcohol and controlled substances that would interfere with job performance.  There was no reporting requirement mentioned in the policy.

‘An employer's changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext’ to establish discrimination.” Sells v. Holiday Mgt. Ltd., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-205, 2011-Ohio-5974, ¶ 27, quoting Thurman v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 90 F.3d 1160, 1167 (6th Cir.1996), amended on other grounds, 97 F.3d 833 (6th Cir.1996). “The factfinder is entitled to infer from any ‘weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions’ in the employer's proffered reasons for its action that the employer did not act pursuant to those reasons * * * . If the factfinder concludes that one of the employer's reasons is disingenuous, it is reasonable for it to consider this in assessing the credibility of the employer's other proffered reasons.”

Mitigation.  The court also rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to so much back pay because she failed to mitigate damages and had recovered workers’ compensation during the same period because she was purportedly unable to work.  Again, the court rejected a judicial estoppel argument because she might have been able to work with a reasonable accommodation.  The court also found the mitigation affirmative defense was waived because there no was argument about it in closing statements and it failed to object to the exclusion of its proposed jury instruction.  As with the bifurcation issue, it was an error to not transcribe the jury instruction conference and include on appeal.  Failing to include a mitigation jury instruction could not be a plain error because the collateral source rule precludes consideration on the receipt of unemployment or workers’ compensation in a discrimination case, in part to further deter discriminatory employer misconduct.  In any event, the employer bore the burden on this affirmative defense and it failed to introduce any evidence about jobs which had been available that the plaintiff could have performed.   Finally, the amount of back and front pay awarded by the jury was well below the plaintiff’s estimates of what she would have earned if she had not been terminated.

Compensatory Damages for Emotional Distress.  The court rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff could not recover for emotional distress without expert testimony or a contemporaneous physical injury. “Under Ohio law, even without proof of contemporaneous physical injury, one may recover for mental anguish, humiliation or embarrassment.”

 

At trial, Cavins testified that she had been forced to file for bankruptcy as a result of the termination and her resulting loss of income. Cavins further testified that in addition to incurring filing fees for the bankruptcy, her relationships with creditors and others had been affected. She also stated that she was humiliated. In addition, Cavins testified about stress and stomach issues while she worked at Black Stone, due to her employers’ attitude.

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 Litigation Snares Two Nearby Employers

Last week, the EEOC announced a settlement and one court verdict involving two different nearby employers.  One involved an employee’s religious objections to having his hand biometrically scanned as part of a new payroll system and an award against that employer for more than $585,000 in compensatory damages, lost wages and benefits.  The other involved an $80,000 settlement of an EEOC lawsuit alleging a racially hostile work environment by a Chagrin Falls, Ohio employer. 

In the first case, the EEOC brought suit against a coal company and its parent alleging that a long-time employee had been forced to resign because the employer refused to accommodate his religious beliefs.  In particular, the employee believed that the employer’s new biometric hand scanners – which had been implemented to track employee attendance – constituted the mark of the beast (i.e., the antichrist).  He objected to being subjected to the technology and notified the employer on a number of occasions.  The employer refused to accommodate his religious beliefs and informed him that he would be disciplined and terminated if he refused to scan his hand.    The EEOC alleged that the employee was forced to retire due to the employer’s refusal to accommodate his religious beliefs.

In January, a federal court jury in West Virginia found that the employer violated the employee’s religious beliefs and awarded the employee $150,000 in compensatory damages.  Last month, the federal judge awarded an additional $436,860 in back pay, and front pay.  The Court also enjoined the employer for three years from denying religious objections to the biometric hand scanner and required them to be trained about religious accommodations.

The other case involves allegations of offensive language by the general manager towards African-American employees and less favorable treatment (such as less frequent breaks than white employees).    The EEOC complaint also alleged that an African American supervisor was subjected to a racially and sexually hostile work environment and retaliation when she opposed the mistreatment.  The settlement provides $44,500 to the supervisor and $35,000 to the remaining employees.

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 $1.5M Verdict for Sexual Harassment of and Retaliation Against Temporary Employees

Last week, a unanimous Sixth Circuit affirmed a $1.5M jury verdict against a logistics employer which fired three women and one male employee who protested sexual harassment by a supervisor who also played significant roles in having each of them fired.  EEOC v. New Breed Logistics, No. 13-6250 (6^th Cir. 4-22-15).  The Court rejected the employer’s argument that opposing and protesting a supervisor’s sexual harassment to his face is not protected “opposition” under Title VII and specifically noted that the statute does not require the employee to protest to anyone in particular.  The Court also found the employer could be held liable for punitive damages based solely on the harassing supervisor’s knowledge and conduct and because the employer did not distribute the anti-harassment policy to temporary employees, did not conduct a good faith workplace investigation of the anonymous harassment complaint about the supervisor, and terminated three of the four plaintiffs during the workplace investigation.

According to the Court’s opinion, the defendant employer operated with mostly temporary employees assigned from staffing companies.  It only provided employee handbooks to its regular employees.  One of its supervisors had the authority to terminate temporary employees and was regularly harassing female subordinates with lewd comments and physical contact.   Not only did the employees object to his conduct, a male co-worker also requested that he stop it.  Only one of the employees ever complained to management and only did so anonymously.  The subsequent investigation was initially limited to interviewing the harassing supervisor.  All of the plaintiffs were ultimately fired shortly after the anonymous complaint was made.  Two of them were fired for purported attendance issues and two for making a mistake.   The harassing manager was found to have been the decisionmaker or to have played a role in all of their terminations.  The employees denied having attendance issues and evidence was presented that other employees had made mistakes without being fired.

The employer had argued that the plaintiffs could not prove retaliation because they could not show that they engaged in any protected conduct before their termination.  Only one of them had made an anonymous complaint to management prior to her termination.  The employer contended that the employees’ protest to the harassing supervisor himself and resistance to his harassment was not protected conduct.  Surprisingly, two other court decisions agreed with this argument, with one of them noting that resistance to harassment could not be protected conduct or every harassment claim would automatically constitute a retaliation claim as well.  The Sixth Circuit rejected this argument because Title VII’s opposition clause in the anti-retaliation provision prohibits retaliation against any employee because the employee opposed an unlawful employment practice.   The Supreme Court has previously noted that “oppose” means to resist.  Therefore, the Sixth Circuit has found protected opposition with informal complaints of discrimination:

[A] demand that a supervisor cease his/her harassing conduct constitutes protected activity covered by Title VII. Sexual harassment is without question an “unlawful employment practice.” If an employee demands that his/her supervisor stop engaging in this unlawful practice—i.e., resists or confronts the supervisor’s unlawful  harassment—the opposition clause’s broad language confers protection to this conduct. Importantly, the language of the opposition clause does not specify to whom protected activity must be directed.

Because the supervisor knew of their protests of his behavior and played a role in their terminations, the Court had no difficulty finding sufficient evidence of but-for causation in their retaliation claims.   Where he merely played a role in two plaintiffs’ termination, the decisionmaker relied upon his evaluation of their work and gave inconsistent explanations about why she held them to a higher standard than other employees.   There was also a strong temporal proximity between the time of the protected conduct and the retaliatory terminations.  In addition, the EEOC was able to provide evidence that the reasons given for the terminations were pretextual because the harassing supervisor had told one of the employees that he would disguise her tardiness (instead of discharging her), one of the employees had never been accused of attendance issues before he was fired shortly after being interviewed during the harassment investigation, and two of the employees could show that other employees had make similar mistakes and not been fired.

The Court also refused to consider the employer’s Ellerth affirmative defense because each of the plaintiffs suffered a tangible employment action when they were fired.

The Court found that the employer could be held liable for punitive damages.  The Court rejected the employer’s argument that it could not be liable since sexual harassment was outside the scope of the supervisor’s employment because the tangible employment action -- firing the employees -- was within the supervisor’s authority.  The Court also rejected the employer’s defense that management could not have acted with deliberate disregard of federal law since management did not previously know about the harassment because the supervisor clearly knew about the harassment. “The EEOC only had to show that the “individual[] perpetrating the discrimination [or, here, retaliation]” acted with malice or reckless disregard for federally protected rights.”   

Further, the Court rejected the employer’s good faith defense because it did not undertake efforts to prevent and remedy the harassment by, for instance, providing an employee handbook or harassment policy to the temporary employees.  It also had initially only interviewed the supervisor after the anonymous complaint was made and did not interview all of the potential witnesses identified. “In assessing whether an employer engaged in good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII, we focus “both on whether the defendant employer had a written sexual harassment policy and whether the employer effectively publicized and enforced its policy.’”  Finally, the jury was entitled to infer a lack of good faith from the fact that three of the plaintiffs were terminated during the employer’s investigation of the anonymous complaint.  

The jury instruction on punitive damages omitted language about the employer’s good faith defense.  The Court found that the employer had waived its objection to this omission by failing to argue about the missing language during the charge conference even though the employer had submitted a proposed jury instruction with the missing language.   The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that it constituted plain error for the jury instruction to omit the employer’s good faith defense because the employer did not make an argument about its good faith during its closing arguments to the jury. 

The Court also rejected challenges to the jury instruction use of “because of” instead of “but for” in the retaliation instruction.  

The EEOC press release about its victory mentions that the lawsuit was first filed in September 2010 and the jury reached its verdict in May 2013.

 

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 Obtains Unanimous $600K Federal Court Jury Verdict in Cleveland Against West-Side Private School.

On Monday, the EEOC announced that a unanimous jury rendered a $600,000 verdict against Lake Ridge Academy in favor of a male employee who claimed that he had been fired in retaliation for objecting to unequal pay for women. The Academy also agreed to pay another $350,000 in settlement before the jury rendered a verdict on punitive damages. According to the EEOC, the plaintiff “had been employed at the North Ridgeville, Ohio-based preparatory school as chair of an accreditation study and was fired after requesting information from Lake Ridge’s Head of Schools and the Chief Financial Officer regarding possible pay inequity when he noted that males were being paid more than females for similar education and work history.” After a full evidentiary trial, the “jury awarded back pay of $50,000, front pay of $50,000, and compensatory damages of $500,000.” There was nothing in the press release about the validity of the underlying pay discrimination concerns.

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-10-08a.html.

Sixth Circuit Affirms $435K Verdict in Retaliatory Termination Case.

In Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products, Inc., No. 06-4619 (6th Cir. 2/8/08), the plaintiff argued that he was unlawfully terminated by a Swiss conglomerate as President and corporate Chief Operations Officer only three months after he filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination on account of his age (62) and national origin (American). The jury awarded $185,000 to the plaintiff on the retaliation claims and the Court added another $250,000 for attorney fees, court costs and pre-judgment interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on appeal.

The plaintiff had produced evidence that the Swiss company had proposed several cost-cutting measures, including a corporate-level powerpoint presentation by his boss (a Swiss citizen) which suggested the termination of “elderly” employees. He testified that he had been phased out of the corporate decisionmaking process and his boss also suggested in May 2003 that he hoped to retire and volunteer in the community at plaintiff’s age and then asked for the plaintiff’s resignation. The plaintiff also testified that his Swiss boss had complained to him in 1996 about it being the biggest mistake of his career to hire an American manager (i.e., the plaintiff), said he would never repeat that mistake and, in fact, never hired another American manager thereafter. His boss admitted that age discrimination is not illegal in Switzerland and did not understand U.S. employment laws or how they applied to the plaintiff. Nonetheless, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

When the plaintiff refused to retire as requested, he hired an attorney and accused the employer of both illegal discrimination and breaching his employment agreement. The employer then agreed to retain him in his current position, but never brought him back into the corporate decisionmaking process. The plaintiff then filed an EEOC Charge alleging age and national origin discrimination. Three months later, his boss met with him and, as described by both the plaintiff and the employer’s human resources director, fired him in January 2004 after reading the following statement:

“‘Dennis, I know that you know [the defendant employer] never committed discrimination in the past, at present, and will not in the future. I therefore canot [sic] understand why you raise such a claim.’ We are not discriminatory, just not.”

The defendant submitted a plausible explanation of poor performance as a non-retaliatory reason why it terminated the plaintiff. For example, the employer contended that it was unhappy with how the plaintiff had managed a particular division and had managed his own division during the brief 2001 recession. The employer also showed that it had pretty much excluded the plaintiff from the corporate decisionmaking process before he made his first allegation of discrimination in May 2003. However, the Court held that the jury could disbelieve the employer’s explanation of poor performance on the grounds that other individuals were more responsible for the corporate failures according to the outside auditors (and yet were not similarly held accountable) and because other managers were not similarly held responsible for the recession. Once a jury rejects the employer’s explanation as false or insufficient, it may infer that discrimination or retaliation was the actual reason or motivation. More importantly, the Court found that the employer’s pre-discharge statement -- denying any unlawful discrimination and wondering how the plaintiff could make such an accusation -- could reasonably be interpreted as evidence that the plaintiff’s EEOC allegations were at the forefront of the employer’s mind when it decided to terminate him.

The Court acknowledged that temporal proximity alone can rarely prove a retaliation claim and the plaintiff lacked direct evidence of retaliation. Indeed, the Court had previously ruled that the passage of four months between protected conduct (i.e., an EEOC Charge) and a discharge created an insufficient inference of retaliation. However, with the passage of only three months, the jury’s disbelief of the employer’s explanation for its conduct and – most importantly -- the employer’s pre-discharge statement, the plaintiff had produced sufficient circumstantial evidence of a retaliatory discharge to support the jury’s verdict. It probably would have been a different result had the employer not protested the discrimination allegations moments before firing the plaintiff.

Insomniacs can read the decision in full at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0066p-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.