EEOC Releases Statistics Showing Busy FY 2009 Which Favored Employers

Earlier this month, the EEOC released its Fiscal Year 2009 statistics which showed a slight decrease in the number of discrimination charges filed with the agency compared to the prior fiscal year. In terms of the type of allegations, 36% alleged race discrimination, 36% retaliation, 30% sex discrimination, 24% age discrimination and 23% disability discrimination.(Obviously, some Charges alleged more than one factor). Interesting, the EEOC disclosed that it dismissed over 60% of all charges filed after an investigation as lacking reasonable cause of discrimination. Almost 20% of Charges are closed administratively because the Charging Party ceases cooperating or could not be located, etc. Ten percent of cases were closed with settlement and almost 6% of cases resulted in a withdrawal of the Charge with benefits to the Charging Party. Only 4.5% of all charges filed were found to show probable cause of discrimination following an investigation. Nonetheless, the EEOC obtained almost $300M in benefits through settlement, mediation, and litigation for successful Charging Parties, an increase over FY 2008.

Insomniacs can read more about the statistics at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-6-10.cfm.

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

Franklin County Court: Summary Judgment Reversed When Peer Review Privilege Might Not Apply to Protect Hospital

Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of Mount Carmel Hospital on a wrongful discharge claim brought by an Emergency Room physician on the grounds that the trial court improperly assumed that relevant evidence which the hospital refused to produce during discovery was protected by Ohio’s peer review privilege.

Thus, documents created by a peer review committee or exclusively for a peer review committee would be protected by the privilege. However, the Court concluded that a hospital could not shield documents it created itself by simply circulating them among the peer review committee.

If a health care entity itself is the original source, it cannot shield documents from disclosure just by circulating them during peer review proceedings. In other words, a health care entity must produce documents responsive to a document request if it created the document, the document was not generated by and/or exclusively for a peer review committee, and the document is available outside of any peer review committees' records (i.e., employees, affiliates, officers, or directors of the health care entity can access the document for non-peer review purposes).

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the trial court had failed to analyze whether the withheld documents were created by the hospital or the peer review committee and whether they would be covered by the privilege. “Absent evidence that the requested documents were created by and/or exclusively for a peer review committee, or generated by an original source and produced or presented to a peer review committee, the party asserting the R.C. 2305.252 privilege has not met its burden.” Therefore, the case was remanded to the trial court to evaluate the hospital’s privilege claim and to permit the plaintiff physician to complete discovery and revise his response to the hospital’s summary judgment motion if the hospital ultimately produced additional relevant evidence.


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 Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Mandatory Maternity Leave

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral argument on whether the Ohio Civil Rights Commission exceeded its authority by requiring Ohio employers to provide a reasonable amount of maternity leave to new employees even when similar leaves are not provided to new male employees. In particular, an employee was fired by an Ohio nursing home when she required maternity leave before she had been employed at least one year as required by the employer's uniformly applied leave policy. No employees are given a leave of absence under the policy until they have been employed at least one year.

Certain provisions of the Ohio Civil Rights Act mirrors the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits discriminating against women on account of pregnancy. There is no provision under the federal or state statute explicitly requiring a leave of absence for female employees that is not also provided to male employees; it merely prohibits discrimination. Some courts have ruled that the PDA does not require maternity leave unless males are given similar leaves of absence; thus the FMLA was created. The OCRC determined, however, that women would never be able to keep jobs if they got pregnant under such policies and has required Ohio employers to provide a reasonable amount of maternity leave even if they did not otherwise provide any leaves to other employees. In doing so, the OCRC relies on a single federal court decision.

An argument was made that the OCRC exceeded the Ohio constitution by creating a rule which lacks explicit statutory support. To the extent that the OCRC is attempting to create public policy, the argument goes, that should be left to the Ohio General Assembly. Citation was made to three other states which have enacted such laws.

The Attorney General's office also tried to draw an analogy to the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII's religious discrimination clause. However, unlike the PDA, those statutes explicitly require employers to provide a reasonable accommodation. Thus, merely because an employer is required by statute to provide a leave as a reasonable religious or disability accommodation does not mean that the PDA (or corresponding Ohio statute) requires the same in the absence of similar statutory language.

The Ohio Supreme Court was provided with an earlier opportunity this year to address whether the Ohio statute requires reasonable accommodation of lactating mothers in Allen v. Totes/Isotoner Corp, but it declined to address this issue at that time.

Insomniacs can watch the oral argument in Nursing Care Management of America, Inc., d.b.a. Pataskala Oaks Care Center v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, No. 2009-0756 here or on the PBS Ohio Channel.

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

Franklin County Court of Appeals Helps Pro Se Plaintiff with FMLA Claim.

Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeals partially reversed summary judgment against an employee on his FMLA claim. Randolph v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co., 2009-Ohio-6782 (12/22/09). The pro se plaintiff had been summarily fired after failing to report to or timely call off work on the last day of an attendance probation. He claimed that he had blacked out during an episode of depression, which he claimed was aggravated when he learned he had been fired after he finally woke up and started to drive to his doctor and call his supervisor. In his lawsuit, he claimed that the employer interfered with his right to take FMLA leave. The trial court found that he failed to notify the employer of his need for FMLA leave as soon as practicable and his absence was not encompassed by his earlier FMLA request for intermittent leave for “treatment.” However, the appellate court found that the employee’s depressive episode could arguably constitute a serious medical condition which would support new, unforeseeable FMLA leave and that a jury could conclude that he had notified the employer in sufficient time.

According to the Court’s opinion, the employer’s policy:

requires an employee to report any absence and the reason for it within a half-hour of the employee's scheduled start time and states that failure to report an absence may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. Under the absenteeism policy, an employee with seven absences in a 12- month period is placed on "absence probation," during which the employee may have only one absence. More than one absence during the absence probation subjects an employee to termination.

The plaintiff had been placed on attendance probation on June 24 until December 5 for reasons unrelated to an FMLA leave he had taken the prior year. Nonetheless, the employer did not count against his probation his absences as excused by his physician for his depression or for an asthma attack which he admitted was not covered by FMLA.

On the last day of his probation, the plaintiff failed to report to or call off work within 30 minutes of the beginning of his shift. His supervisor claimed that she left him a voice mail near the end of the day terminating his employment for violating the terms of his probation. According to the plaintiff, he awoke from a blackout in the late afternoon, realized he needed immediate medical attention and when he began to call his supervisor while driving to the doctor, he checked his voice mail and learned he had already been fired. At this point, he claimed that he began to have a nervous breakdown and drove to his mother’s home instead of his physician. His mother then telephoned the supervisor that evening and attempted to explain the situation and how her son would probably be hospitalized. The plaintiff himself called his supervisor and human resources first thing in the morning and explained the same. Nonetheless, the employer refused to reconsider his termination.

While the Court agreed that the plaintiff’s FMLA rights had not been interfered with before December 5, it found a factual dispute as to whether he was entitled to new, unforeseeable FMLA leave beginning on December 5 even though he failed to call off work during his shift that day. The Court agreed that the plaintiff’s earlier FMLA certification only covered “treatment” and “recovery from treatment” and did not encompass the December 5 absence because he had not received any treatment that day. However, to the extent that his need for leave on December 5 was unforeseeable, the plaintiff was only required by both the earlier and current FMLA regulations to give notice of his need for leave “as soon as practicable.” This could be two days, or less, or more depending on the particular factual circumstances of the situation.

The employer argued that the plaintiff had admitted that the depressive episode began on November 30 and thus, plaintiff was on notice days earlier that he might need FMLA leave. However, the court found a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff did not require time off work until he blacked out during the evening of December 4, and thus, he notified his employer as soon as practicable under the circumstances. In reaching this decision, the Court found it relevant that the employer summarily terminated the employee by voice mail and how this notice of his termination adversely affected his mental health, preventing him from calling his employer any earlier in the day under the circumstances.

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: Discovery Order Requiring Employer to Disclose Attorney’s Conversation with Employee Is Not Immediately Appealable.

‘Tis the season for discovery and evidentiary rulings involving employers. This week, a pretty unanimous United States Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal filed by an employer after the district court ordered it to disclose information about a conversation between its litigation attorney and an employee who later brought a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming he was fired because of that conversation. Although the employer claimed that the conversation was protected by attorney-client privilege and it would be irreparable harmed by disclosing the information, the Court held that it could not appeal the ruling until suffered a sanction for disobeying the court’s order. Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carptenter, No. 08-678 (12/8/09).

According to the Court’s opinion, the employer was defending class action litigation which alleged that it was driving down the wages of its legal employees by employing undocumented immigrant workers (or illegal aliens). Unaware of this, the plaintiff emailed the employer’s human resources department that it was employing undocumented workers. Accordingly, he was asked to meet with the employer’s attorney who was defending the class action litigation. The plaintiff claims that he was unlawfully fired after he refused to recant his statement when pressured by the attorney. The district court ordered the employer to produce information about the plaintiff’s meeting with the attorney and the termination decision. Although the court agreed with the employer that the information was privileged, it found that the privileged had been implicitly waived through disclosures in the class action. In particular, when the class action plaintiffs sought information about the plaintiff’s termination, the employer claimed that he had been fired for recommending the hiring of undocumented workers and had been interviewed by the attorney to substantiate the investigation. By revealing the content of the communication and its relation to the plaintiff’s termination in the class action, the court found the employer waived attorney client privilege in the wrongful termination litigation as well. The district court stayed its order, but refused to certify the issue for immediate appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as well. On appeal, all of the Justices affirmed the dismissal, although Justice Thomas wrote his own concurring opinion.

On appeal, the employer conceded that the discovery order was not a final appealable order, but argued that jurisdiction existed nonetheless because it was an appealable collateral order.

The question before us is whether disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Agreeing with the Court of Appeals, we hold that they do not. Postjudgment appeals, together with other review mechanisms, suffice to protect the rights of litigants and preserve the vitality of the attorney-client privilege.

The crucial question, however, is not whether an interest is important in the abstract; it is whether deferring review until final judgment so imperils the interest as to justify the cost of allowing immediate appeal of the entire class of relevant orders. We routinely require litigants to wait until after final judgment to vindicate valuable rights, including rights central to our adversarial system.

The Court concluded that the employer could protect its privileged communications in a number of ways:

First, a party may ask the district court to certify, and the court of appeals to accept, a ninterlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §1292(b). The preconditions for §1292(b) review—“a controlling question of law,” the prompt resolution of which “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”—are most likely to be satisfied when a privilege ruling involves a new legal question or is of special consequence, and district courts should not hesitate to certify an interlocutory appeal in such cases. Second, in extraordinary circumstances—i.e., when a disclosure order “amount[s] to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion,” or otherwise works a manifest injustice—a party may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. . . [Third, a]nother long-recognized option is for a party to defy a disclosure order and incur court-imposed sanctions. District courts have a range of sanctions from which to choose, including “directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action,” “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses,” or “striking pleadings in whole or in part.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 37(b)(2)(i)–(iii). Such sanctions allow a party to obtain post judgment review without having to reveal its privileged information. [Finally], when the circumstances warrant it, a district court may hold a noncomplying party in contempt. The party can then appeal directly from that ruling, at least when the contempt citation can be characterized as a criminal punishment.

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.