Butler County Court of Appeals Alters Summary Judgment Standard in Employment Discrimination Cases

Last week, a divided Butler County Court of Appeals reversed a car dealership’s summary judgment on claims of discriminatory compensation and public policy wrongful discharge brought by a six-month employee who claimed that she had been fired for reporting COVID and rodent issues to OSHA and who had been not been paid promised bonuses.  Johnson v. Cincy Automall, Inc., 2024-Ohio-5749.  While the Court was unanimous that she could pursue her wrongful discharge claim, a divided court held that the traditional burden shifting used for decades in all employment discrimination cases no longer applied in summary judgment cases.  Rather, the plaintiff as the non-moving party with the admitted ultimate burden of proof was not required to produce evidence supporting her claim or prima facie case until the employer/moving party disproved her allegations with actual evidence of its own in its motion.    In addition, the court's majority held that she could show that she was similarly situated without reference to a comparison of job duties or terms and conditions of employment based solely on her allegation that she had not been paid her earned bonus while male employees (with different jobs and terms and conditions of employment) had been paid their earned bonuses. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired in July 2020 to manage the Facebook page, implement new software and develop sales leads for sales staff.  She was promised a weekly salary and monthly bonuses that were based on developed sales leads.   However, she was never paid any bonus and alleged the owner claimed that he could not afford to pay her, but he did pay the sales people (who were mostly male).  (The dissent notes that the owner apparently admitted that he owed her some unpaid bonuses).   When he ignored her concerns about non-compliance with COVID protocols and mouse feces, she reported her concerns to OSHA on December 15.  She claimed that her computer and FB access was revoked the next day and she was fired a week later.  The dealership denied this and claimed that she voluntarily resigned after being offered a transfer to an administrative position.  OSHA investigated and determined in March that she had not been fired for engaging in protected activities.  She brought suit in May, claiming unspecified sex discrimination and harassment, breach of contract, retaliation, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.   The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, except notably, the breach of contract.   She appealed and a divided court of appeals reversed dismissal of the claims of discriminatory compensation (i.e., payment of the bonuses) and wrongful discharge.

The trial court dismissed the public policy claims on the basis that there were no clear public policies underlying the employer’s COVID practices and the rodent infestation.   Although the Court unanimously reversed this decision, this same Court had previously upheld the discharge of an HR Director on the grounds that COVID was not a workplace safety issue, but a general public health issue. The plaintiff “contend[ed] that COVID hazards and a mice infestation are matters of workplace health and safety and that an at-will employee who is fired for filing a complaint with OSHA concerning matters of health and safety in the workplace states a valid claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.”  Importantly “she invoked the OSH Act's anti-retaliation provision in 29 U.S.C. 660(c).”   Ohio’s leading Supreme Court case on wrongful discharge claims – Kulch v. Structural Fibers – recognized a claim for retaliation for filing a claim with OSHA.   Other, later cases recognized claims for similar internal complaints. 

It is crucial to emphasize that the threshold for protection under this public policy is not the ultimate validity of the complaint, but rather the employee's good faith belief in its legitimacy. As the Ohio Supreme Court observed in Kulch, to require otherwise would risk deterring employees from reporting genuine health and safety concerns, which would undermine the policy favoring workplace safety.  . . .  This principle also finds support in federal law surrounding one of the main sources of the public policy, 29 U.S.C. 660(c).

The Court distinguished its former public policy/COVID decision on the grounds that the HR Director was not expressing safety concerns, “but rather for disagreeing with her employer's COVID-response protocol. Specifically, she advised an infected employee to quarantine for ten days contrary to her employer's order that the employee return to work.”  At that time, the Court did not view the employee’s objection to the employer’s refusal to honor a quarantine direction as an OSHA retaliation concern, but here, found the employee was expressing safety concerns (which focused on handwashing, sanitizers and unpaid leave for quarantines). 

All this being said, the Court refused to address the employer’s arguments refuting causation and its good reason for any adverse employment because these arguments had not been raised in its trial court motion or addressed by the trial court in its summary judgment decision.   While its review is de novo, it indicated that appellate courts should not address issues not raised by the trial court and, instead, would limit this decision to the scope of the trial court decision.  

A divided Court reversed the pay discrimination dismissal on the grounds that she had been denied bonuses which she had allegedly earned (and was the subject of a pending breach of contract claim), but male sales people were paid their bonuses.    At core, she was claiming that that the only reason she wasn’t paid for the bonuses that she earned was because she was female and the car salespeople (all but one of whom were male) were paid their bonuses because they were mostly male.    However, the Court’s majority criticized the trial court’s description of her claim as being that she was paid less than male employees for the same work when she held an administrative position and they were sales employees.  As far as the majority is concerned, she stated a discrimination claim when she compared the fact that she was not paid her earned bonus when male employees were paid their earned bonus, even if the terms of their bonus arrangements were based on different metrics and conditions.

 This question cuts to the heart of the "similarly situated" analysis, which requires us to determine whether the male comparators were similar "in all relevant respects."  . . .

 {¶ 39} It is imperative to note that there is no rigid, predetermined list of factors that must be considered in making this determination. As the Sixth Circuit aptly noted, a court must make an "independent determination as to the relevancy of a particular aspect of the plaintiff's employment status and that of the non-protected employee" based on the facts of the case.  . . .  This aligns with the Ohio Supreme Court's case law on this issue, which recognizes that "what is relevant depends on the case."

 . . .. In the present case, the minutiae of duties, job titles, or the particulars of bonus structures are of little consequence. What matters is the simple fact of entitlement to a bonus and payment—or lack thereof.

 . . . . .

[The employer] argues that [the plaintiff] cannot be similarly situated to male employees because she managed the Business Development Center while they worked in sales. But this misapprehends the nature of the similarly situated analysis. The question is not whether employees share identical job duties across the board in the abstract, but whether they are similarly situated in the specific context that forms the basis of the discrimination claim. . . . Here, [she] alleges discrimination in the payment of contractually-promised bonuses. The relevant comparison, therefore, is whether male employees who were contractually entitled to bonus payments received them while [she] did not. [The employer] offers no explanation for why the difference between management and sales positions matters for purposes of honoring contractual bonus obligations. In the absence of evidence demonstrating the relevance of this distinction to bonus payment practices, [the employer] has failed to meet its initial burden on summary judgment to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether [she] was similarly situated to male employees who received their bonuses.

 . . . . [Her] compensation agreement, her complaint, her deposition testimony, and [the employer’s] answers to interrogatories collectively indicate that [she] and the men were entitled to bonus payments, that the men were paid, and that women (with one exception) were not paid.

In addition, the Court’s majority then ignored traditional burdens of proof in employment discrimination cases.  It faulted the employer for merely pointing out that the plaintiff had failed to sustain her burden of proving discrimination instead of producing its own independent evidence as the moving party.  Apparently, the employer had pointed out in its motion that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence, such as pay stubs, etc. and asserted that she had been an administrative assistant for months (thus, not entitled to any bonus).  Rather, Court’s majority contended that the employer “needed to point to evidence that, for example, the men were not entitled to payment or were not paid.”

The dissent pointed out that the employer in a discrimination case is not required to prove the absence of discrimination until the plaintiff produces enough evidence to show that she was treated differently.    However, the Court’s majority concluded: “This failure to discharge its initial burden is fatal to [the employer’s] motion for summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim.  It remains to be seen whether this case will be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court based simply on the Court’s mysterious and inexplicable alteration of the burdens of proof in discrimination cases:

{¶ 45} It is crucial to emphasize that at this stage of the proceedings, the ultimate burden of persuasion has not yet shifted to [the plaintiff]. While she retains the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that [the employer] intentionally discriminated against her,  that burden is not yet operative in the context of summary judgment.

The dissent identified a lot of problems with the majority decision.  First, the plaintiff’s complaint and the summary judgment briefs barely mention, let alone discuss, wage discrimination.  Rather, the motion focused on her allegation that she had been terminated (which the employer denied) and contended that she had resigned after refusing a transfer.  The plaintiff’s response to the motion likewise focused on the termination allegation, but also identified evidence that certain men were paid the bonuses that they earned and that the employer engaged in a lot of allegedly sexist conduct.  Nonetheless, the trial court addressed wage discrimination in his decision, concluded that she had suffered an adverse employment action, but could not show that she was treated differently by being paid less for the same work since her work was not the same.   He also noted that she had admitted in her deposition that she had never reviewed actual payroll records to support her allegations.  

In other words, [her] sex discrimination claim is not an equal pay claim—sometimes called a wage discrimination or pay discrimination claim—but is instead a sex discrimination claim that, as a factual matter, relates to [the employer’s] alleged failure to pay certain compensation (bonuses) that [she] alleges were owed to her.  [She] only alleges that [her employer] has discriminated against her in failing to pay bonuses, not in the terms of her bonus plan. There is therefore no need to examine equal pay statutes . . .

Second, the dissent took exception to the majority’s evaluation of who is similarly situated:

Speaking generally, the simple fact that some employees are entitled to a bonus and a plaintiff is not paid a bonus, by itself, does not establish that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiff. Is it the same bonus? For doing the same work? Who decides who gets paid the bonus? Do the employees have the same bonus plan? Did the plaintiff and the other employees differ in their compliance with the terms of the bonus plan? At least some commonality must be established—the same or a similar job, the same pay plan, the same supervisor, etc.

The dissent then pointed out that the plaintiff had a very different job from the men to whom she was comparing herself.   She did not and could not produce any evidence that the men’s bonus plan was similar to her bonus agreement.

Finally, the dissent pointed out that for decades the plaintiff has been required in opposing a summary judgment to produce or identify evidence to support her burden of proof, but in this case, the majority was faulting the employer for not producing evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s burden. 

Next, the majority states that "[the employer] needed to point to evidence that, for example, the men were not entitled to payment or were not paid." In making this statement, the majority seems to imply that a court faced with a summary judgment motion must assume that employees identified as similarly situated by a plaintiff are in fact similarly situated, and that the burden is on the employer (the moving party) to disprove that the employees are similarly situated. I am aware of no case law supporting the majority's view of what McDonnell Douglas requires.

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.

FMLA Retaliation Claim Survives Dismissal Even if Employee Was Not FMLA Eligible at Time of FMLA Request

On Monday, the Lake County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s judgment on a FMLA claim brought by a former employee who had been fired the day before she was to marry her seriously ill finance after she requested once again to leave work early.   Mahoney-Offi v. Great Expressions Dental Ctrs., 2024-Ohio-5160.   The court concluded that her complaint could state a valid claim for FMLA retaliation because she was not required to be eligible for FMLA at the time of the leave request.  If she “is ultimately able to prove that her termination was not the result of her request to leave early on December 9 but in retaliation for her prior inquiry about FMLA leave, then she has stated a viable claim for retaliation under the FMLA.”

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been requesting to take time off to care for her seriously ill boyfriend.  She had requested and been denied FMLA on the grounds that they were not married.  However, it was suggested to her by management that she would be eligible for FMLA if she married him.  Shortly thereafter, they became engaged and were scheduled to be married on December 10.  On December 9, she requested to leave work early.  Initially, it was to prepare for her wedding, but later she said it was because he had become sicker and she needed to care for him.  Knowing that she planned to marry the next day, the employer then fired her on December 9.  She filed suit under the FMLA, which was initially dismissed on the grounds that she was not eligible for leave on December 9 and had already been denied leave.

The Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that a plaintiff may pursue a FMLA retaliation claim if she was terminated for merely requesting leave (which is a protected activity) even if she was not eligible for leave at the time of the FMLA request.   However, a jury could still rule in favor of the employer if it found that she was fired for requesting to leave early on December 9, instead of the leave which the employer knew she intended to take after she was married on December 10. 

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 Questions Whether Agreement to Simple Release of All Claims Was Voluntary When Union Gave Plaintiff Poor Advice and It Failed to Identify "Discrimination" Claims.

Yesterday, a divided Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on racial discrimination and retaliation claims.  Moore v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., No. 23-3775 (6^th Cir. 8/22/24).  The majority agreed that the plaintiff produced enough evidence to demonstrate a factual dispute about whether he was treated differently than white co-workers when he was terminated for testing six times higher than the prohibited threshold while two white co-workers were treated more leniently under comparable circumstances.  The Court refused to enforce the release of claims he signed in a last chance agreement given for insubordination despite his college education and failure to request more time to consider it when the entire meeting lasted about 10 minutes, the union vice-president encouraged him to sign it and the release of “all” claims against the employer arising out of employment did not specifically mention discrimination claims.   The Court remanded for the trial court’s consideration whether placing him on a second chance agreement and requiring random drug testing after he tested positive for marijuana below the employer’s prohibited threshold was discriminatory. The Court also found that the employer waived its affirmative defense to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to raise with the district court the plaintiff’s failure to file a Charge of Discrimination about the second chance agreement or mention it in a later charge about his suspension and last chance agreement. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had received college degrees in fashion design and hospital administration, but joined the defendant employer in 2015 as a warehouse employee after realizing his hospital career was not going further.   He began filing discrimination complaints with HR starting in August 2016, complaining about unpaid suspensions, etc.  Following an April 2017 accident where he significantly damaged an autonomous vehicle with a forklift he was driving, he was drug tested, but tested below the prohibited threshold in the employer’s policy, which provides for suspensions without pay, random testing for 24 months and immediate termination with another positive test within 60 months under a second chance agreement (SCA).   Although he objected to being placed on a SCA when he tested below the threshold, his supervisor -- who never saw the drug test results --  told him that he would be fired if he refused.  He did not ask for additional time to consider the agreement.

In June 2017, the plaintiff and other employees objected in salty language to a new operations directive.   He was then informed that he was being terminated for insubordination, but the union negotiated a last chance agreement for him the following month.  He met with the union vice president and his supervisor for ten minutes and was told that he would not be reinstated without signing the agreement, which contained a release of all claims against the company and the union.  Again, he did not request more time to review and consider the agreement.  He filed a Charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission challenging the termination (when other white employees also used salty language without being terminated), the LCA and his failure to receive backpay from his suspension, but did not mention the SCA.    A year later, he tested positive for marijuana at 6 times the prohibited level and was terminated in July 2018.   While he does not dispute that he tested positive, he challenged being placed on random drug testing under the SCA in the first place.  In May 2019, he filed an EEOC Charge alleging that he was treated differently than white co-workers. 

 

The district court found that the plaintiff had waived his challenge to the SCA and his suspension by signing the release in the LCA.  It also found that he could not show that the employer’s explanation for his termination -- his positive drug test -- was pretextual.   A divided Sixth Circuit reversed.

In the lengthiest part of the decision, the Court focused on the questions raised about whether the release of claims contained in the LCA were voluntary, and thus, enforceable under Title VII.   The majority discounted his college education for lacking legal training and his failure to request any time to consider the LCA because the union officer had told him to sign it if he wanted to be reinstated (and possibly poor legal advice) and the entire meeting lasted only 10 minutes.  It also discounted the fact that he had union representation and was never given an explicit deadline by the employer when he had to sign it.    In considering whether a release is valid and enforceable, courts will consider the following factors:

“(1) [the] plaintiff’s experience, background, and education; (2) the amount of time the plaintiff had to consider whether to sign the waiver, including whether the employee had an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; (3) the clarity of the waiver; (4) consideration for the waiver; as well as (5) the totality of the circumstances.” Id. While weighing these factors, we also “must ‘remain[] alert to ensure that employers do not defeat the policies of . . . Title VII by taking advantage of their superior bargaining position.’”

Interestingly, the majority found that the union’s encouragement to sign the agreement should be held against the employer even though the union was more accurately aligned with the employee.  One has to wonder if merely a friend had similarly given him poor advice would similarly affect the court’s analysis.  In short, it found that a jury should be able to later decide whether his signature should be considered voluntary:

It is unclear from the record whether [the plaintiff] was required to sign the LCA the same day that he was presented with it, or if he was able to request additional time to consider the contract’s terms. Similarly, the record indicates that [he] did not have an attorney present but does not provide any information as to whether [he] would have been permitted to request one prior to his signing the LCA. Most telling is that Arrington, the union representative in the room with [him] when he signed the LCA, told [him] to just sign the LCA and that it was “better to fight with a job than fight without a job.”  . . .  Reasonable jurors could find that Arrington’s statements indicated that [his] discrimination claims would survive his signing the LCA and that they influenced [his] signing the agreement.

Although Moore holds associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, his education does not provide him with any type of legal, managerial, or contractual background that would be relevant to interpreting the LCA’s terms in a manner essentially at odds with what the union representative told Moore. . . .

The Court also questioned whether the simple language releasing all claims against the employer and union relating to his employment arising prior to that date was sufficiently clear when the simple sentence did not explicitly mention discrimination or statutory claims.

In other cases where we have found that such provisions are straightforward in their terms, the contracts have explicitly stated that the employee was waiving the right to bring a discrimination suit,  . . . or that an individual must “arbitrate any legal dispute relating to their employment . . . , including all state and federal statutory claims,”  . . . . The LCA that [the plaintiff] signed is not precise in explaining what was meant by “any and all liability of any kind whatsoever relating to his employment with” CCBC, and [he] lacks a background that would help him to interpret this term.  Most important in [his] case is [the union officer’s] statement in the context of signing the LCA that it was “better to fight with a job than fight without a job.”

 . . . . As discussed above, particularly important in this case are the facts that (1) the union representative effectively suggested that [the plaintiff] would be able to seek legal recourse notwithstanding [his] signing of the agreement; (2) the agreement was not clear with respect to what rights [he] was waiving; and (3) [the employer] was in a better bargaining position. In other words, consistent with our caselaw, [his] education and experience are not “dispositive,” but rather are considered in the full context of the other waiver factors.  . . . Indeed, the union representative’s comments alone suggest that the waiver was not likely knowing and voluntary: it is natural for an employee to trust that their representative’s representations concerning that employee’s rights are fair and accurate.

The Court also rejected the employer’s accurate argument that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he never filed a Charge of Discrimination challenging the SCA because the employer never raised this argument in its summary judgment motion before the trial court.  The failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense.

In addition, the Court found that the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether the justification for terminating him -- the admitted positive drug test -- was pretextual because it was insufficient to motivate his discharge when other employees were not terminated under similar circumstances.  He alleged that he was targeted for drug testing six times -- more than any other employee -- even though two of his co-workers “were permitted to come to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs and were not likewise penalized.”   He alleged that one co-worker “was likewise on an SCA, but was not tested during this time, nor was [that employee] fired after he had a positive drug test while on a SCA” following an accident.  Instead, the white co-worker wasn’t fired for more than a year after he failed a third drug test.

A two-strikes policy for firing Black employees and a three-strikes policy for firing white employees would plainly constitute disparate treatment and raise pretext concerns. At this stage, all that we look for is similarly situated comparators who “were not fired” despite engaging in “substantially identical conduct to that which the employer contends motivated its discharge of the plaintiff.”

Because the trial court did not consider pre-LCA events, the Court remanded for further consideration the plaintiff’s argument that that he was placed on random drug testing under the SCA even though it was not factual that he failed the first drug test. 

Finally, the Court had no difficulty in finding adequate evidence for the jury to consider about the retaliation claim.  The plaintiff had filed many internal discrimination grievances with HR, which were known to his manager.  He submitted one complaint a mere week before the final random drug test that resulted in his termination. “Given the temporal proximity between Moore filing his EEO grievances and the adverse employment action taken against him, Moore has shown “sufficient temporal proximity to establish a causal connection.”

 

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 Reinstates SOX Jury Verdict With Lower Burden of Proving Employer's Motive Against Whistleblower

 This morning, the Supreme Court unanimously found that proof of retaliatory intent is not necessary to prevail on a claim for wrongful discharge brought under §1514A(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and the employee must prove that the protected activity was merely a contributing factor to his or her employment termination.  Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 (U.S. 2-8-24).  “Under the whistleblower-protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, no covered employer [publicly-traded companies] may ‘discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of’ protected whistleblowing activity. 18 U. S. C. §1514A(a).”  The protected activity includes reports by employees “what they reasonably believe to be instances of criminal fraud or securities law violations.”     “When a whistleblower invokes this provision, he bears the initial burden of showing that his protected activity ‘was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.’ 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(iii). The burden then shifts to the employer to show that it ‘would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ‘ the protected activity. §42121(b)(2)(B)(iv).”  The statutory language prohibiting discrimination against the employee does not require proof of retaliatory intent. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was employed as a research strategist who was required by SEC regulations to certify to his employer’s current and prospective customers that his reports were prepared independently and reflected his own views.  He alleged that he was fired after internally reporting in December 2011 and January 2012 that the leaders of two trading desks were improperly pressuring him to skew his reports to support their business strategies and to “clear” his articles with them before publication.  He found their conduct to be both unethical and illegal.  His supervisor, while sympathetic, urged him to not alienate those two individuals and was not helpful when the plaintiff reported that he was improperly being left out/excluded from meetings.   Despite having just given the plaintiff a strong performance evaluation, the manager then recommended him for layoff or to be transferred to a trading desk analyst position where he would not have SEC-certification responsibilities.  When the trading desk rejected him, he was fired in March 2012.  At trial, the employer argued that “market-wide difficulties and a $2-billion loss on a [its] trading desk in London had required the elimination of certain positions,” including his.

At trial, the judge instructed the jury that he was “not required to prove that his protected activity was the primary motivating factor in his termination, or that . . . UBS’s articulated reason for his termination was a pretext.”  When the jury sought clarification, the judge instructed that they ““should consider” whether “anyone with th[e] knowledge of [the plaintiff’s] protected activity, because of the protected activity, affect[ed] in any way the decision to terminate [his] employment.”  Recommending a $1M verdict, the “jury found that [the plaintiff] had established his §1514A claim and that [the employer] had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have fired [him] even if he had not engaged in protected activity.”  The court added $1.7M in attorneys fees and costs to the jury’s recommendation.   On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that the plaintiff was required to show that the employer possessed a retaliatory intent.  Today, the Supreme Court reversed.

Unlike most federal employment statutes, SOX adopts the “burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code”—a provision of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).” Under that statute, “the whistleblower bears the burden to prove that his protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.” 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(i). If the whistleblower makes that showing, the burden shifts to the employer to show “by clear and convincing evidence” that it “would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ” the protected activity. §42121(b)(2)(B)(ii).”  This framework

originated in the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), 5 U. S. C. §1221(e), which provides legal protection for whistleblowers within the civil service. The framework was meant to relieve whistleblowing employees of the “excessively heavy burden” under then-existing law of showing that their protected activity was a “‘significant’, ‘motivating’, ‘substantial’, or ‘predominant’” factor in the adverse personnel action, and it reflected a determination that “[w]histleblowing should never be a factor that contributes in any way to an adverse personnel action.” Congress then incorporated the easier-to-satisfy “contributing factor” framework into a series of similar whistleblower statutes that protect non[1]civil-service employees in industries where whistleblowing plays an especially important role in protecting the public welfare—including, as noted above, the airline industry (AIR 21) and the securities industry (Sarbanes-Oxley).

The Court then explained that

Section 1514A’s text does not reference or include a “retaliatory intent” requirement, and the provision’s mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with such a requirement. While a whistleblower bringing a §1514A claim must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action, he need not also prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

                . . . .

An animus-like “retaliatory intent” requirement is simply absent from the definition of the word “discriminate.” When an employer treats someone worse—whether by firing them, demoting them, or imposing some other un[1]favorable change in the terms and conditions of employment—“because of ” the employee’s protected whistleblowing activity, the employer violates §1514A. It does not matter whether the employer was motivated by retaliatory animus or was motivated, for example, by the belief that the employee might be happier in a position that did not have SEC reporting requirements.

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that innocent employers will be held liable for adverse employment actions which were not motivated by retaliation or the protected conduct, such as when the employee’s protected conduct results in the biggest client to leave and the employee without any work to do:

The statute’s burden-shifting framework provides that an employer will not be held liable where it “demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that [it] would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of ” the protected behavior. 49 U. S. C. §42121(b)(2)(B)(ii). The right way to think about that kind of same-action causation analysis is to “change one thing at a time and see if the out[1]come changes.” Bostock, 590 U. S., at 656. The question is whether the employer would have “retain[ed] an otherwise identical employee” who had not engaged in the protected activity. Id., at 660. As the Federal Circuit has explained in the WPA context, the same-action analysis “does not require . . . that the adverse personnel action be based on facts ‘completely separate and distinct from protected whistleblowing disclosures.’”  . . . In that case, the correct inquiry was whether the employer would have taken the same action if it had learned of the contents of the employee’s protected disclosure through other means.  . . .. In UBS’s hypothetical, the relevant inquiry would be whether the employer still would have fired the employee if the client had left for some other reason. If so, it will have no trouble prevailing under the statute.

To be sure, the contributing-factor framework that Congress chose here is not as protective of employers as a motivating-factor framework. That is by design. Congress has employed the contributing-factor framework in contexts where the health, safety, or well-being of the public may well depend on whistleblowers feeling empowered to come forward. This Court cannot override that policy choice by giving employers more protection than the statute itself provides.

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 Conclusory Allegations in Complaint of Racial and Retaliation Discrimination and Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

 . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohio Court Rejects Free Speech and Retaliation Claim by Private Sector Employee Fired for Facebook Post

Last month, the Court of Appeals for Auglaize County affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim where the employee had been terminated shortly after receiving complaints about a racist meme which she had posted on Facebook in June 2020.  Hall v. Kosei St. Marys Corp., 2023-Ohio-2021.    The Court concluded that employees of private employers are not protected by the First Amendment or the Ohio Constitution and, thus, do not enjoy an unlimited right of free speech.  Further, she could not show that her arguably protected conduct (in reporting another employee for inappropriate comments) motivated her termination when other employees also complained about her Facebook post and could not have been retaliating against her.  The Court also found the passage of 25 weeks between the arguably protected conduct and her termination removed any temporal proximity needed to show causation by itself.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been employed for several years when she posted a meme on her Facebook page which, among other things, compared BLM protestors to monkeys.  She denied that she had seen the entire photo before she posted it and argued that it was more political than racial.   Several of her co-workers and subordinates saw it and complained to Human Resources.  She was then fired and brought suit, claiming that she was fired in violation of the right of free speech.  She pointed out that one of the complaining employees was retaliating against her for reporting them twice to Human Resources in the prior few months for making racially charged comments and allegations (which were unfounded) about her and other employees. 

The Court rejected her argument that she was fired in retaliation for reporting one of her subordinates for making racially charged and inappropriate comments.  She could not show causation when other employees had also complained and lacked the same motive to retaliate against her.  The passage of 25 weeks between her arguably protected conduct and termination also meant that she could not rely on temporal proximity to prove causation. 

As for whether she could show her termination violated public policy, she could not identify any court decisions where such a public policy had been applied to a private employer and at-will employee.   On the contrary, the court cited to a Franklin County Court of Appeals decision finding that the right of free speech under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions only apply to government employers. “[I]n the absence of state action, the free speech protections of the Ohio Constitution do not provide a basis for [plaintiff], an at-will employee, to raise a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim in this case against [the defendant company], a private employer.”

we have not uncovered a case in which the free speech protections in the Ohio Constitution have been found to provide a legal basis for bringing a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim against a private employer in the absence of state action. We decline the opportunity to become the first court to reach such a conclusion. As such, [the plaintiff] cannot establish the clarity element of her wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim in this case. For this reason, we conclude that summary judgment was an appropriate method to dispose of this claim.

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

Franklin County Appellate Court Rejects Discrimination Claims Based on Criminal Conviction and Non-Substantially Limiting Impairments

[Editor's Note:  On August 3, 2023, the Court deleted its original opinion and re-issued it after a request for reconsideration on the issue (noted below) about whether a request for a reasonable accommodation may constitute protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim.  Without resolving that issue, the Court deleted the paragraph discussing that issue (as noted below) and modified the opinion, but not the result: " In light of appellant’s reconsideration motion and the accompanying amicus brief filed with this court, we reissue our June 20, 2023 decision without original paragraph 102 and with a slight modification to original paragraph 103 (now 102). Whether a request for accommodation constitutes protected activity under Ohio law is a question that warrants full briefing before definitive resolution by this court."]

Last month, a unanimous Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment where the plaintiff had alleged that he had been terminated on account of his race, disability and in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.  Childs v. Kroger Co., 2023-Ohio-2034.  The plaintiff had been hired into a bargaining unit position despite a murder conviction from when he was a juvenile and was ultimately promoted to a salaried assistant manager position before he was fired when management learned about his prior murder conviction.  The Court found that he was unqualified for his position because the company policy at the time of his termination precluded the employment of convicted murderers.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was convicted of murder in 1996 from when he was a juvenile.  He was hired by Kroger into an hourly bargaining unit position in 2014.  He had truthfully reported that he had a criminal conviction on his employment application and claimed to have explained the details to his interviewer.  The background check only reviewed the prior 7 years and so did not pick up the earlier murder conviction.   His job history listed his prison employment as well as his current job.  It apparently did not occur to the individuals reviewing his job application that his prison employment was as a prisoner instead of as a private contractor.  In 2015, he applied for and was selected for a management training position.  In 2017, he began suffering panic attacks after the store was robbed and he was physically threatened.  He was given a poor performance evaluation a couple of months later and put on a performance plan.  He then accused his manager a few months later of being racist based on observed favoritism.  A month later, he then submitted a medical statement about his depression and asked to be transferred to another store.  He then complained again in October 2017 about his manager, who was then transferred.  The plaintiff was also transferred from Reynoldsburg to Sunbury in February 2018 and he received a better performance evaluation.

While in Sunbury, the plaintiff learned in April 2018 that an employee had been convicted as a sexual offender.  He recommended termination and participated in the union grievance process that resulted in the employee’s termination as a risk to minor employees.  Shortly thereafter, an employee was searching for information about the plaintiff’s recent motorcycle accident and discovered his 1996 murder conviction.  It was reported to management and he was fired at the end of May 2018 because company policy provided that it was a disqualifying offense.  More than a year later, the plaintiff filed suit alleging race and disability discrimination and retaliation and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as well as unlawful aiding and abetting and defamation.  The trial court eventually granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims and it was affirmed on appeal.  Much of the lengthy appellate decision involves procedural and discovery issues.

The Court concluded that, despite the fact that the plaintiff had worked more than three years at Kroger and been promoted, he could not satisfy his prima facie case and show that he was qualified for his position before being fired because his 1996 murder conviction rendered him unqualified.  The plaintiff “is unable to establish the third element of his prima facie case, because his murder conviction rendered him unqualified for employment at Kroger.” Evidence was presented that the company refused to hire individuals with certain convictions and fired them if a disqualifying conviction was later discovered.   Even if murder was not a disqualifying conviction at the time he was hired, it was at the time he was terminated.

The Court also rejected his claim for disability discrimination, which was based on his depression, anxiety and PTSD.  The Court found that the plaintiff failed to show that his depression substantially limited any major life activities because he admitted that he was able to continue to work and the remaining limitations were relatively insignificant.  Although the plaintiff

 indicated that his depression impacted his ability to sleep and do household chores on some days, he did not claim that his depression affected his ability to sleep or do chores for significant amounts of time. [The plaintiff] presented no evidence indicating that his depression substantially limited his ability to think or otherwise engage in major life activities, and he affirmed that he could hold a job despite his depression. Accordingly, [he] failed to demonstrate that his depression occurred in sufficient duration and with sufficient severity to significantly limit any major life activity.

In any event, even if the plaintiff could show that he were statutorily disabled, he “also could not establish that he was qualified for his assistant store manager position either with or without a reasonable accommodation, because his murder conviction rendered him unqualified for any position of employment with Kroger.”

As for his retaliation claim, the Court initially rejected his argument that he was retaliated against for requesting a transfer as a reasonable accommodation. “A request for reasonable accommodation does not amount to “participation in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing” or “opposition to an unlawful discriminatory practice” under R.C. 4112.02(I).” In other words, Ohio law does not consider a reasonable accommodation request to be protected activity for purposes of asserting a retaliation claim.  However, the Court withdrew that part of its opinion on August 3, 2023 as noted in the Editor's Note above. 

Similarly, the Court concluded that it was not protected conduct under ORC 4112 to report the sexual offender conviction of a subordinate to management when he asserted that his termination was motivated by reporting the sexual offender despite the store manager’s resistance.

Nonetheless, his other retaliation claim had more merit.  He claimed that he was placed on a performance improvement plan after asking his supervisor if he was racially biased against him.  However, the company contended that it was based on his earlier, year-end performance evaluation.  Sadly for the plaintiff, his own comments on his performance evaluation acknowledged that his performance needed to improve and commented on specific mistakes or shortcomings that he had shown.  He also could not disprove that the company always placed low-performing employees on performance plans.  Therefore, the Court dismissed the retaliation claim.

Because all of his ORC 4112 claims were dismissed, the aiding and abetting allegations against the individual employees and managers were similarly dismissed.

The Court also dismissed the wrongful discharge claim on the basis that his murder conviction motivated his termination and not his earlier report of the sex offender employee.  He could not show that public policy was jeopardized by his reporting of the sex offender to management.  Even if that report had motivated his termination, he could not identify a public policy which was violated by his termination:

[His] termination would not have jeopardized the public policy expressed in R.C. 2950.034(A). The statute prohibits sexually oriented offenders from residing in specific locations; it does not prohibit sexually oriented offenders from working at specific locations.

Finally, the Court dismissed the defamation claim based on the incorrect report that he had failed to previously disclose his murder conviction.  He claimed – without contradiction – that he had disclosed it in his job interview.  However, he could not prove that the HR employee passed that information along to management or that the individuals who allegedly defamed him knew that he had previously disclosed it in a 2014 interview.   Further, management has a qualified privilege to discuss other employees.

Furthermore, “ ‘a communication made in good faith on a matter of common interest between an employer and an employee, or between two employees concerning a third employee, is protected by qualified privilege.’ ” . . . “Once the defense of qualified privilege attaches, a plaintiff can only defeat the privilege with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant made the statements at issue with actual malice.”

Ms. Gray and Mr. Shepard were both managers at Kroger, and their communication regarding [the plaintiff’s] failure to disclose his murder conviction was a matter of common business interest between them. As such, Ms. Gray’s statement to Mr. Shepard was subject to a qualified privilege. Because the evidence demonstrates that [he] failed to disclose his murder conviction to Kroger [in writing], Mr. Childs cannot establish that Ms. Gray made her statement to Mr. Shepard with actual malice.

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 Inference of Retaliation From Passage of Time Whether it Be Six Years, Fifteen Months or Even Possibly Four Months.

Last month, a unanimous Sixth Circuit affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on a retaliatory failure to promote claim on the grounds that the passage of more than 15 months -- since the dismissal of the plaintiff’s prior lawsuit were affirmed on appeal -- prevented an inference of retaliatory motive.  Wheeler v. Miami Valley Career Technology Center, No. 22-3315 (6^th Cir. 1/10/23).    When the only retaliatory action the plaintiff could identify was being passed over for a promotion, the Court agreed that the passage of six years since her prior lawsuit had been filed, and 15 months since her appeal had been dismissed, could not support an inference of retaliatory causation.  The Court suggested that the passage of as little as four months could be insufficient by itself to show causation. 

 According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff teacher had been employed for approximately 30 years and applied, was minimally qualified and was interviewed for three open administrative positions in 2018, but was not selected for any of them.  She initially filed Charges of Discrimination alleging that she was passed over on account of her age and in retaliation for an EEOC Charge and lawsuit which she had filed in 2012 (but which had concluded in January 2017 when the Sixth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s 2016 summary judgment in favor of the employer).  The trial court dismissed her lawsuit on the grounds that the six years which had passed since she filed her initial Charges of Discrimination and lawsuit prevented any inference of retaliation for failing to promote her in 2018.  After appealing only the dismissal of her retaliation claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed because she:

 complains of actions that occurred years before the alleged wrongful actions by [the employer], with her prior complaint being filed in 2012. This proximity is woefully insufficient by itself—the Supreme Court has held that events not even two years apart are nowhere near close enough. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist ., 532 U.S. at 274 (“Action taken . . . 20 months later suggests, by itself, no causality at all.”). [She] responds that we should consider that her litigation lasted until January 2017, about 15 months before [the employer] hired someone other than [her] for the first administrative position. But this is still insufficient—we have held that far shorter time periods do not establish the required causation. See Imwalle, 515 F.3d at 550 (“In this circuit, a period of more than four months was found to be too long to support an inference of causation.”). The temporal proximity in the present case is simply not enough.

The plaintiff also attempted to challenge the employer’s explanation (of more qualified external candidates) on the grounds that the employer typically promoted internal candidates for administrative positions and that her interviews were “poisoned” by being interviewed by individuals who had been involved in her prior litigation.  However, the Court did not find her argument to be supported by the evidence.  In short, her only evidence of retaliation was not being promoted:

But given the amount of time that has elapsed since the prior lawsuit, this, by itself, is far from enough evidence needed to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to causation. . . . . She has not produced sufficient evidence establishing that the 2012 complaint was a “but-for” cause of her failed 2018 promotion, nor can she prove that she would have been promoted if not for the 2012 complaint.

 

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 Reinstates FMLA Claims Where Employee Called Off for Vague "Flare-ups" and Manager Knew of FMLA Requests.

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit reversed an employer’s summary judgment on FMLA retaliation and interference claims.  Render v. FCA US LLC, No. 21-2851 (6^th Cir. 11-16-22).   The plaintiff had been tentatively approved for intermittent FMLA leave for his depression and anxiety.  However, when he called off on multiple days, he only once referred to the FMLA (when asked) and usually just said he was unwell or was having a “flare-up” (the term his physician used to describe his need for FMLA).  The Court found that this otherwise vague reference to his FMLA Medical Certification was sufficient to put the employer on notice of the need to inquire further and that he did not need to specially refer to the FMLA or to his anxiety or depression.  The Court also found sufficient evidence of retaliation in light of the temporal proximity of his protected activity of requesting FMLA leave and the termination decision. “It is the request that is protected activity,” not whether the leave is qualified or not.  The Court rejected the employer’s honest believe defense because the decisionmaker was aware that he had requested FMLA leave, was seeking to use it on the days in question, and had disputed the mis-coding of his absences as non-FMLA (i.e., that she had been provided with mistaken information which she had the authority and power to correct herself).   Finally, the Court agreed that the employee had sufficiently complied with the employer’s customary call off procedures when the information he had been provided was confusing and contradictory.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been terminated for poor attendance, but was reinstated following a grievance and subject to a conditional reinstatement letter that he would be fired again if he had more than two attendance infractions in the next year’s probationary period.  Within six months, he missed or was tardy at least four times and was fired.  Thing is, he applied for and was conditionally approved for four days per month of intermittent FMLA leave for his depression and anxiety.  The FMLA administrator sent him inconsistent and contradictory information about how he was to report his FMLA absences and the recordkeeping of the employer and FMLA Administrator was also inconsistent and contradictory.   Although he was given confirmation numbers when he called, he generally failed to indicate that he was using or had been approved for FMLA leave and would only refer vaguely to “flare-ups” and not being well enough to work.  The decisionmaking HR manager checked with other HR and the FMLA Administrators, but was given incorrect and/or misinterpreted the information.   Because she could not confirm that he had called in as required on all of the dates and the FMLA administrator had failed to record them as FMLA absences, the HR manager decided to terminate him even though he told her that he had attempted to use his approved FMLA leave. 

The Court’s majority found that there was sufficient evidence to prove that the employer may have interfered with his right to take FMLA leave.  While employees who have been approved for FMLA leave are required when calling off work to refer to the FMLA or to their FMLA approved condition and say more than that they are “sick,” the Court found that the employer is bound by the employee’s prior notice requesting FMLA leave and the supporting medical statement describing his medical condition.   

Either way, an employee “[c]alling in ‘sick’ without providing more information will not be considered sufficient notice to trigger an employer’s obligations under the Act,” though an “employer will be expected to obtain any additional required information through informal means.”

 In this case, the plaintiff had requested and been approved for intermittent FMLA leave for “flare-ups” of his chronic depression and anxiety.  So, when he called off due to “flare ups,” the employer was on notice to inquire further if it questioned whether this was covered by the FMLA:

With less context, some of [the plaintiff’s] four call-ins could be viewed as providing insufficient notice. Although [he] referenced the FMLA during his December 7, 2017 call-in, he did not do so during his call-ins on December 6, 2017 and January 5, 2018, opting instead to say that he was suffering from “flare ups.” . . . .  As the district court noted, a “flare up” just means “a sudden appearance or worsening of the symptoms of a disease or condition.” . . . .The term does not by itself indicate what these symptoms or the underlying disease or condition are. Standing alone, an employee reporting that they were having a “flare up” could be the equivalent of calling in “sick,” which 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b) explicitly provides “will not be considered sufficient notice to trigger an employer’s obligations under the Act.” The same is true of [his] call from December 8, 2017, during which he merely reported having been “sick the last few days,” referencing his calls from December 6 and 7.

But there is more to this story. Nothing in 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(b) commands that we overlook pertinent background. . . . Given that employers are under a duty to inquire further about the nature of the leave requested, a previously submitted medical certification listing symptoms is relevant to evaluating what can be reasonably gleaned from an employee’s call-in. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.301(a), 825.303(b).

Before making any of his calls, [he] provided [the employer] with such a certificate.  . . . This document informed the company that [he] would be unable to work when the symptoms of his depression and anxiety were acute. . . . . More importantly, the certificate alerted [the employer] that [he] would be unable to work when these symptoms “flare[d] up.” Id. It also noted that these flare ups could occur three-to-four times a month. Id. Therefore, when [he] called in on three consecutive days in December 2017 specifically referencing either his symptoms flaring up, or the FMLA, or, by the last day, his previous two days out and his subsequent need to be late to work, it would be reasonable to conclude that he put [the employer] on notice that he was referring to his FMLA-qualifying condition. . . . . The same is true for the January 5, 2018 call, during which [he] also identified a flare up of his symptoms as the reason for his tardiness. . . . .. At the very least, [the employer] knew that [he] had been requesting FMLA leave during the December call-ins by the day of the last leave request because he reinformed the company that he had been doing so.  . . . . On this record, we hold that a reasonable jury could conclude that [he] provided adequate notice of his need for unforeseeable FMLA leave each time that he called in.

The minority opinion also concluded that he had complied with the employer’s customary call-off policies and the majority opinion agreed: “For the reasons stated in the lead opinion, a reasonable jury could find that [the plaintiff] provided sufficient notice of his intent to take FMLA leave under [the employer’s] internal leave policies.”

In general, employers can establish call-in procedures, and they may deny FMLA leave if an employee fails to follow those instructions. . . . Accordingly, [the employer] could adopt a policy requiring employees to call both Sedgwick and the [the employer’s] call-in line to report an FMLA absence. But an employee cannot be faulted for failing to comply with company policy if the policy was unclear or the employee lacked notice of the policy.

In this case, Sedgwick’s letter was so confusing that even Mitchell, who worked in FCA’s human resources department, could not decipher what it was asking employees to do. . . .

Understandably, [the plaintiff] did not follow these confusing instructions to a tee. He believed that he simply had to call the 1-800 number and report his absence. He “didn’t realize there was a second number.” . . . .We cannot fault him for failing to call both [the employer] and Sedgwick when (1) the list of instructions only gave one phone number (the one he called), and (2) the letter did not clearly list a phone number for Sedgwick. Moreover, Render took other steps to ensure that he properly reported his FMLA days. In the days immediately following his absences, he told two different supervisors that his absences were FMLA days, and he followed up with [the HR Manager] to ensure that his absences were properly coded.

As for his retaliation claim, the Court had no trouble finding that the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity in requesting FMLA leave and that the employer knew about his requests before terminating him.  It was irrelevant whether the absences were in fact protected by the FMLA for purposes of deciding whether he had engaged in protected activities. 

Employers are charged with knowing about FMLA protected activity as soon as an employee requests leave, even if it turns out the employee was not entitled to benefits. It is the request that is protected activity. . . . . Even if [the employer] did not know that [the plaintiff] was using his intermittent FMLA leave at the time of his absences, the issue is whether it knew about his protected activity before it terminated him. In this case, even if [the manager] was unaware that [the plaintiff] asked to use his leave on December 6, she admitted that she knew he was claiming FMLA protection by December 8, over a month before she terminated him.

The Court’s majority also found that the plaintiff could satisfy his burden of showing that his protected activity motivated his termination because of the temporal proximity between his initial FMLA request in October, his first attempt to use it in December and his termination in January.  While the employer may rely on the violation of his probation terms as its legitimate and non-discriminatory reason, the prima facia causation element was satisfied by the temporal proximity of the events. 

The Court also found that the plaintiff could show pretext on the ground that the employer’s explanation had no basis in fact because his absences had been miscoded by the FMLA administrator as miscellaneous instead of as intermittent FMLA as he had been conditionally approved.  When the plaintiff discovered the mistake, he was told that he would have to request HR to re-code his absences as protected by the FMLA.  However, when he went to the HR manager about the problem, she admitted that she could re-code his absences, but terminated him instead.   

The Court rejected the employer’s argument that it could rely on the honest belief rule based on incorrect information given to it by the FMLA administrator and other HR employees because the HR Manager was aware that the plaintiff had been conditionally approved for FMLA leave, that he had attempted to use that FMLA leave on all but one of the absences in question and that she had the authority to re-code the absences as covered by the FMLA leave.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff], [the HR Manager] failed to catch the many errors that were made in the process of marking [his] absences as “MISU.” Even though she had the power to fix those errors, [she] did not recode [his] absences. Instead, she terminated him. A jury could find that [her] errors were the only thing giving her a reason to terminate [him], given that his absences would have otherwise been excused. Indeed, the record shows that [she] terminated [him] even though she knew that he was trying to use his FMLA days and that he was already conditionally approved for intermittent FMLA leave. Still, she refused to recode the absences as FMLA. A jury could thus find that the proffered reason had no basis in fact.

. . . .At this point, [he] has provided ample evidence indicating that [the employer] wrongfully designated his absences as unexcused when they should have been coded as FMLA. And [she] admitted that she terminated [him] even knowing that he qualified for FMLA leave and that he was trying to use his approved leave to cover his absences and tardies in December and January. [He] thus raised sufficient facts showing that FCA’s nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual.

In short, the honest belief rule will not protect a manager from her own error when she was on notice that she may have been given incorrect information during her investigation. 

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.

Requesting a Reasonable Accommodation is Not a Protected Activity Under Ohio Retaliation Law

The Crawford County Court of Appeals last month affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on claims asserting that the plaintiff had been terminated for requesting a reasonable accommodation.  Hall v. Crawford County Job and Family Services, No., 2022-Ohio-1358.  The Court held that requesting a reasonable accommodation is not a protected activity under Ohio law which can support a retaliation claim.  Rather, denying a reasonable accommodation may be unlawful discrimination, but the request itself is not a protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim.  Further, the Court found that the plaintiff had voluntarily disclosed her disability to her employer and it was justified in requesting a fitness-for-duty examination when she claimed her disability adversely affected her job performance and submitted an FMLA request. 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff voluntarily disclosed to her supervisor that she suffered from MS which sometimes made her mind foggy and could impair her job performance.    She brought it up again during a March 20 pre-disciplinary conference and was recommended to apply for FMLA leave.  Although she said she objected and did not require it, she submitted FMLA paperwork on March 26, which did not mention her MS diagnosis.  She was also requested to submit to a fitness-for-duty examination.   She was given a three-day suspension and ultimately terminated.  She filed suit, claiming retaliation and improper medical inquiries.  The trial court found that she had been provided with a reasonable accommodation, could not prove causation, etc.

The plaintiff alleged that the employer’s request for a fitness for duty examination was an improper medical inquiry.  However, the court found that the plaintiff voluntarily disclosed her MS disability and claimed that it could be impairing her job performance.  Moreover, once she had requested FMLA leave and a reasonable accommodation, the employer was entitled to request information about the nature and extent of her alleged disability.

The plaintiff alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation.    The court found that requesting a reasonable accommodation is not a protected activity under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112 which could support a retaliation claim.  While terminating an employee for requesting a reasonable accommodation might be unlawful discrimination, it does not fit within the types of activities that constitute protected conduct under Ohio law, such as opposing discrimination, testifying, participating in an investigation, etc.

The plaintiff denied that she had attempted to pursue a failure-to-accommodate claim, and objected the trial court granting summary judgment to the employer as though she had done so.  The appellate court refused to address this argument. 

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.