Sixth Circuit Revives Claim of Sex Discrimination in Hiring When HR Director Could Not Get Her Story Straight.

Today, a divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of an employer on a claim that the company had refused to hire a female applicant on account of her sex. Peck v. Elyria Foundry, No. 08-3301 (6th Cir. 9/9/09). In doing so, the Court found that a jury could determine whether the employer’s HR Director was being truthful when she testified in her deposition that she hired less qualified male applicants because she thought the female applicant only wanted certain jobs and/or because the employer did not have adequate “facilities” for female employees and/or because the plaintiff had a poor attendance record and/or because her attorney sent an inflammatory letter and/or because of a physical impairment. The Court concluded that the inconsistencies in the HR Director’s explanation created sufficient pretext to warrant the case being submitted to a jury to determine who was the most credible.

In the decision, the Court relates that the plaintiff and her boyfriend both applied for jobs at the defendant employer. The plaintiff had relevant experience which she listed on her application, but her boyfriend did not. He indicated that he would take any job, but she listed two possible positions – as a tow motor operator and a grinder -- and a “?.” She also put “?” when asked about her desired salary. Her boyfriend was hired but she was not. Her many phone calls inquiring about the status of her application were never returned. When she questioned the HR Director, she was told that her application was still being considered and she would be called in a few days. She was not.

The plaintiff retained an attorney, who wrote the company and alleged sex discrimination. When the company failed to respond, she filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC and then filed suit for sex discrimination.

The district court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove a prima facie case because she only applied for tow operator and grinder positions and there were no tow operators hired and she was physically precluded from grinding However, the Court of Appeals concluded that there was a factual dispute because her application indicated that she would take any job when she put “?” next to those to job titles. Such an application put the employer on reasonable notice that she would take something other than the two listed jobs, particularly when she put the same mark next to desired salary.

The Court also found she was qualified for the jobs because she had five years of relevant prior experience, unlike fourteen of the men hired since the time of her application. In any event, the HR Director conceded that the plaintiff appeared to be qualified from the face of her job application.

The Court also found possible pretext in the HR Director’s explanation for why the plaintiff was not hired. In the affidavit filed with the motion for summary judgment, the HR Director indicated that the job application was limited to the two listed positions. However, in her deposition she testified that the employer’s “facilities” for women needed improvement and she delayed plaintiff’s application while waiting for these improvements. (Surprisingly, the plaintiff did not argue that this was discriminatory under Title VII even though Title VII prohibits discriminatory facilities.) Still later, the HR Director testified that a current employee and former co-worker of the plaintiff had relayed that the plaintiff was an unreliable employee because of unreliable transportation and childcare. Finally, her application was set aside after receiving letter from the plaintiff’s attorney which was full of “insults and lies.” (Again, it was surprising that the plaintiff did not bring a retaliation claim for a refusal to hire her after the employer had been accused of sex discrimination.).

Employers may have more than one reason for passing on a job candidate. And considered individually, any of [the employer’s] reasons for not hiring [the plaintiff] could explain its hiring decision. The problem here, however, is that some of its reasons are inconsistent at best, if not outright contradictory, and are thus “so intertwined” that the credibility of any of them is in doubt. . . . Moreover, “an employer’s changing rationale for making an adverse employment decision can be evidence of pretext." Here, it would be a logical feat for a jury to believe both [the HR Director’s] testimony that she did not hire [the plaintiff] because she thought [the plaintiff] did not apply for more than two positions and that she did consider her more broadly, yet passed because she received damning input from a former coworker, and because the women’s bathrooms were not up to par. A contradiction by the same employee in the same deposition raises serious credibility concerns; either [the HR Director] considered [the plaintiff] for more than two positions or she did not.

The Court majority also found it problematic that the HR Director claimed to keep the plaintiff’s application open – despite receiving negative reports from a former co-worker – until the inflammatory letter received by the plaintiff’s attorney. During the time period between when plaintiff applied and her attorney wrote the company, the employer hired 22 men – many of whom had no relevant prior experience for their new job.

In contrast, the dissent argued that the HR Director’s testimony was not inconsistent. Although the HR Director “honestly believed” that the plaintiff only applied for two positions, she held her application open in case one of those positions ultimately became available. Nonetheless, the majority found this to be irrelevant because the plaintiff presented evidence that the employer sometimes hired men for positions different from the jobs listed on their applications. In other words, the employer was limiting the female applicant to the jobs listed on her application, but was not similarly limiting male applicants.

Our conclusion that these inconsistencies suggest pretext does not mean that a company is precluded from pursuing alternative lines of defense to convince a jury that its decision was not motivated by sex discrimination. But at the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff may meet her burden of demonstrating pretext by showing, in addition to proffered evidence, that an employer’s reasons are so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory that a rational jury could conclude the reasons were not believable.

Finally, the Court found no evidence that any of the men hired instead of the plaintiff were more qualified than her or that her medical condition would have disqualified her from non-grinder positions.

Therefore, the case was remanded for the district court to hold a trial on the plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim. (The plaintiff’s request to amend her complaint to add a public policy claim based on the retaliation she suffered from her attorney writing a letter was denied on the grounds that Ohio only recognizes public policy torts in wrongful discharges, not in failure to hire disputes).

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0634n-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.

EEOC: Taco Bell to Pay $350K to Two Teenaged Employees Who Were Raped by Store Manager at Work.

On Friday, the EEOC announced that it had settled a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Taco Bell alleging that two minor employees had been raped by a store manager in Memphis. One of the girls was raped on her first day of work and another five months earlier. The manager was ultimately criminally charged, pled guilty to the rapes in 2009 and was sentenced to two eight-year terms as well as permanent designation as a sex offender under Tennessee law. The EEOC’s suit (Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-02579, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis) alleged violation of Title VII’s prohibition against sexual harassment.

Under the terms of the consent decree, “ Taco Bell will pay a total of $350,000” and “will maintain a written policy against sexual harassment and will widely distribute it to all employees” in that region “within 30 days of the entry of the decree. The company will also conduct anti-discrimination training and posting of anti-discrimination notices.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-28-09a.html.

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

Sixth Circuit: School Violated FMLA By Placing Employee on Involuntary, Unpaid Leave in Part Because FMLA Leave

On Wednesday, the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment entered in favor of an Ohio school district employer on an employee’s FMLA claim. In Hunter v. Valley View Local Schools, No. 08-4109 (6th Cir. 8/26/09), the School District placed the employee on an involuntary and unpaid leave of absence for two years when she attempted to return to work with significant medical restrictions following an FMLA medical leave of absence. In doing so, the School’s superintendant testified that the decision was motivated both by the plaintiff’s excessive absenteeism (which consisted almost entirely of her FMLA medical leave of absence) and medical restrictions placed by the employee’s physician. The plaintiff brought suit in state court alleging violations of the FMLA and Ohio’s disability discrimination statute. The district court in Dayton found that the employer would have treated the plaintiff the same regardless of her FMLA leave, granted summary judgment to the school on the FMLA claim and refused to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state law disability discrimination claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed on the grounds that that the school employer illegally discriminated against the plaintiff in violation of the FMLA by placing her on involuntary and unpaid leave in part because of her protected use of the FMLA.

As noted by the Sixth Circuit: “An employer may not discriminate or retaliate against an employee for taking FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). In particular, an employer is prohibited from “us[ing] the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) . . . . Employers who violate the FMLA are liable to the employee for damages. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(1) . . . There are two theories of recovery under the FMLA: an interference (or entitlement) theory and a retaliation (or discrimination) theory.” Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2348-49 (2009), the Court determined that Title VII’s burden-shifting approached remained applicable to mixed-motive FMLA retaliation claims.

Further, the Court recognized that FMLA regulations prohibit employers from taking FMLA leave into account when making adverse employment decisions: “employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions or disciplinary actions; nor can FMLA leave be counted under “no fault” attendance policies.29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) (emphasis added). . . . . The phrase ‘a negative factor’ envisions that the challenged employment decision might also rest on other, permissible factors.”

The school superintendent’s testimony that she considered the plaintiff’s FMLA absences as a negative factor in placing her on an involuntary and unpaid leave of absence was found to constitute direct evidence of impermissible motive because employers are not permitted under FMLA regulations to use FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment decisions. Further, when the superintendent denied that she would have placed the plaintiff on unpaid leave solely because of her medical restrictions – which might have created an issue of disability discrimination and unlawful failure to accommodate -- the court had no difficulty in finding the illegal consideration of FMLA leave was a motivating factor.

Insomniacs may read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0311p-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.

Lactation Discrimination in Ohio: Toto: We’re Not In Kansas Anymore.

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision which had initially promised to decide whether Ohio law prohibited an employer from discriminating against an employee who was lactating. However, the per curiam decision (i.e., non-binding authority) remarkably avoided that issue altogether and, instead, affirmed an employer’s right to fire an employee for insubordination when the employee admittedly took unauthorized breaks without the employer’s knowledge or consent. Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-4231. The Court’s action might not have raised an eyebrow if it were not for the facts of the case and that many people in Ohio have watched the oral argument previously broadcast on the Ohio Channel (which is part of PBS).

By way of background, after returning to work following her maternity leave, the plaintiff requested her supervisor for breaks to pump her breast milk to feed her five-month old infant. The employer apparently told her that she could do so during her regular lunch break. Employees were otherwise forbidden to take breaks unless they needed to urinate, etc. The plaintiff decided that her breasts needed pumped more often or later in the morning than her regular break schedule permitted and so, without her supervisor’s knowledge or consent, she began taking an extra break later in the morning to use the breast pump. The supervisor found out and fired her for failing to follow directions. There was some factual dispute about whether the plaintiff ever notified the employer that its prior arrangement was unsuitable before she added or rescheduled her own rest break.

When the plaintiff brought claims for wrongful discharge under the Ohio Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on the grounds that lactation five months after child birth is not related to pregnancy because lactation would have stopped in the natural course of events if the employee had decided not to breast feed her baby. (In his mind, the fact that she was lactating five months later was related to her decision to breast feed and not to her pregnancy). This was important because pregnancy is covered by statute and breastfeeding is not. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but only on the grounds that she did not satisfy her prima facie case and an employer may legitimately fire an employee for taking an unauthorized rest break.

As mentioned, a majority of the Supreme Court could not agree on a basis to affirm or reverse the judgment. While a majority could agree on affirming the judgment, they could not agree why. Most of the majority apparently agreed that it was non-discriminatory to fire an employee for taking unauthorized rest breaks. However, they could not agree whether the act of using a breast pump put the plaintiff into a protected status under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and refused to address the issue at all on the disingenuous rationale that it would constitute an advisory opinion.

Surprisingly, both Chief Justice Moyer and Justice O’Connor agreed that lactation should be a covered activity under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As Justice O’Connor noted in her opinion, the relevant Ohio statute includes as sex discrimination any action taken “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, any illness arising out of and occurring during the course of a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes * * *.” R.C. 4112.01(B).” The oral argument in this case spent most of the debate focusing on this language. Finding no legal support for her position in any federal court decision on the issue (even though she acknowledged that the Ohio statutory language quotes the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act verbatim) and even though a number of states have passed specific breastfeeding protection statutes to address the lapse, she decided it was beyond dispute that Ohio’s statute covered breastfeeding.

However, both Moyer and O’Conner felt that the plaintiff was asking for preferential treatment by taking an extra break to pump breast milk, and thus, could be fired like any other employee for taking an unauthorized rest break. They do not believe that Ohio law requires employers to give breastfeeding/breastpump breaks to employees. Unlike the ADA, the federal PDA does not require preferential treatment or reasonable accommodation for pregnant women. (Ohio law, on the other hand, mandates a reasonable maternity leave even when an employer does not provide any medial leave). On a strict comparative basis analysis, the plaintiff did not show that she was fired for engaging in the same conduct as others because no one else was taking an extra fifteen-minute break each day to pump breast mile (or any other reason). While I agree that an employee who takes surreptitious breaks or violates her supervisor’s direct order has been insubordinate, I am not certain that this issue is so simple since there seemed to be a factual dispute about whether the employee was treated differently on account of her breastfeeding break or whether Ohio law requires some sort of reasonable accommodation (assuming, of course, that lactating is covered by the PDA, which I do not think it is).

Justice Pfeifer agreed that the plaintiff’s lactating was covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but felt that the plaintiff was discriminated against because she was fired for taking a rest break for the purpose of pumping breast milk, but admittedly would not have been fired if she had taken the same rest break in order to urinate. While this rationale has its benefits, is an employer required to treat breastfeeding the same as urination? If so, would employers then have an incentive to ban urination breaks? Is that a world in which we want to live? Are there time limits on either (how long you have to urinate vs pump breast milk)? Is it relevant that she may never have told the employer that its prior arrangement was insufficient? Does the employee get to decide for herself when she gets to take a break and how often or does she have to work that out first with her employer?

In any event, Isotoner now finds itself in the unenviable position of manufacturing a product (i.e., fashion gloves, slippers and umbrellas) to women who it will not permit to take a daily fifteen minute break to pump breast milk for suckling infants. Ohio employers are left unsure whether a future court decision will address this question or whether the Ohio legislature will eventually take it up. For now, there is no law in Ohio giving women the right to take breaks to pump breast milk for their infants.

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-4231.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.

EEOC Obtains $90K Consent Judgment in Federal Court In Columbus Over ADA Violations When Employer Required Employees to be 100% Fit.

Last week, the EEOC announced that “AVI Foodsystems, Inc. (AVI) will pay more than $90,000 and offer jobs to discrimination victims to settle a class disability discrimination suit brought” by the EEOC in federal court in Columbus, Ohio. “The EEOC charged in its suit (Case no. 2:09-cv-00656-JDH-MRA . . . . that AVI violated federal law by failing to allow employees with disabilities to return to work without a full-duty, no-restriction doctor’s release. The EEOC asserted that this policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The agency said disabled employees who had been on leave and are able to return to work with some physical restrictions, but are still able to perform their jobs, should be allowed to do so. The policy adversely affected more than 80 AVI employees in several states, including Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, and West Virginia.”

According to the EEOC, “[t]he consent decree settling the suit provides that AVI will offer jobs to discrimination victims named in the decree, make payments to individuals who are not provided jobs, comply with the ADA, and train managers on the provisions of the ADA. According to company information, Warren, Ohio-based AVI, the largest independently owned and operated food service in the United States, maintains vending and dining services in commercial locations such as factories, universities, and health-care facilities.”

Insomniacs can read the full EEOC press release at http://