Sixth Circuit: Employer Can Be Estopped From Denying FMLA Leave to Ineligible Employee, but Only If Employee Can Show Actual Reliance on Employer

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals again addressed the issue of whether an employer can be equitably estopped from denying FMLA to an ineligible employee (because the employer had fewer than 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite). Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc., No. 08-1806 (6th Cir. 7/8/09). Although the Court ultimately adopted a loose standard for applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel against an employer, it ultimately held that an employee -- who had been told in writing by his employer that he was eligible for FMLA leave and that his application for FMLA leave had been approved before he underwent an elective surgery -- could not benefit from the estoppel doctrine because he could not show that he actually relied upon the employer’s misrepresentations about his FMLA eligibility in that he had scheduled his surgery before his FMLA application had been approved.

In that case, the epileptic employee elected to have surgery that would decrease his chance to have seizures. He notified his employer months in advance and sought authorization for a medical leave of absence at a particular time. Although everyone seemed to assume that he would be granted a medical leave of absence, he sought definite clarification and specifically mentioned the FMLA. The employer ultimately asked him to complete an application for FMLA leave and confirmed in writing that he would be receiving FMLA leave for up to twelve weeks, his position would be held open for that period of time, that he was eligible for FMLA leave and that his FMLA application had been granted. However, when he was ready to return to work, the employer notified him that it had eliminated his position as the construction project winded down.

When the employee sued, the employer defended on the grounds that his position had been eliminated in the normal course of events (as it would have done even if he had not taken FMLA leave) and that he was not eligible for FMLA leave after all because the employer had not employed more than 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court has followed two different equitable estoppel doctrines in FMLA cases. In one – taken from ERISA cases – the plaintiff must show that the employer essentially committed fraud or bad faith by making false statements of facts with knowledge of the true state of affairs and with an intent for the employee to rely on the false statements. In the more common description of the doctrine found in the Restatement of Torts:

If one person makes a definite misrepresentation of fact to another person having reason to believe that the other person will rely upon it and the other in reasonable reliance upon it does an act . . . the first person is not entitled
. . .
(b) to regain property or its value that the other acquired by the act, if the other in reliance upon the misrepresentation and before discovery of the truth has so changed his position that it would be unjust to deprive him of that which he thus acquired.

The Supreme Court has previously noted that, “the party claiming the estoppel must have relied on its adversary’s conduct in such a manner as to change his position for the worse, and that reliance must have been reasonable in that the party claiming the estoppel did not know nor should it have known that its adversary’s conduct was misleading.” Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U.S. 51, 59 (1986). The Sixth Circuit found this to be the most appropriate standard since the employer is in the best position to evaluate the employee’s eligibility and “is the cheaper cost avoider.”

Nonetheless, in what can be described as a hypertechnical reading of the employee’s affidavit, the Court concluded that the employee could not show that he actually or detrimentally relied on the employer’s misstatement about his eligibility for FMLA leave because he scheduled the surgery before submitting his FMLA application and failed to include any statement in his affidavit that he would have canceled or rescheduled his surgery if his FMLA leave had been denied. As summarized by the Court:

There is no evidence in the record to show that he “change[d] his position” in reliance on the belief that his leave would be FMLA-protected. . . . Had he relied on the erroneous representations, one would expect [the employee] to be able to point to some action or statement that indicated that his decision to have the surgery was contingent on his understanding of his FMLA status; or perhaps evidence that raises an inference of such contingency – for example, a record that he made an inquiry as to his rights, asked for written confirmation of his leave arrangement, or changed his behavior after being told he was eligible. . . . At the very least, [the employee] could have placed an affidavit in the record stating that he would have forgone the surgery but for his belief that his job status was protected by the FMLA. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). But none of this is present in the record.

If anything, the record shows that [the employee] had already decided on and scheduled the surgery by the time he was informed of his eligibility. There is no evidence of a discussion of the FMLA eligibility prior to the application for leave filed with [the employer] on September 27 – about three weeks prior to his October 15 surgery, and well after he informed the company of his planned absence. In deposition, [the employee] indicated that he knew that he would undergo the surgery about six months in advance, and told [his employer] as soon as he knew the date, “maybe three months before . . . the actual surgery.” ROA 291-92. At that time, he said “I got the okay so I will be having surgery on [October 15].” ROA 292. After his superiors asked questions about how long he planned to take off work, [the employee] organized a meeting to discuss his absence. His email preceding the meeting references his “operation coming up” and does not ask for permission to take leave, discuss his rights under the FMLA, or indicate a willingness to delay or reschedule depending on his legal status.

Although the employee argued “that because the surgery was elective, he could have rescheduled it had he known that he was not FMLA eligible. It is true in the abstract that he could have rescheduled it; but it is his burden on summary judgment to produce evidence supporting his estoppel claim, and the record must contain evidence permitting a finding that he would have.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0239p-06.pdf.

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

Supreme Court: Fear of Race Discrimination Lawsuit Cannot Justify Reverse or Other Intentional Race Discrimination if Employer Has Valid Defenses.

In a highly anticipated decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court today reversed a summary judgment decision previously approved by the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Ricci v. DeStafano, No. 07-1428. The lower courts had upheld the City of New Haven, Connecticut in failing to certify the results of a civil service promotional examination for firefighters on the grounds that the City was concerned that it would be sued for disparate impact race discrimination if it promoted any firefighters based on the test because mostly white and Hispanic firefighters passed the exam and only 9 of the 27 African-American firefighters passed. Because the City’s decision was based entirely on the race of the successful and unsuccessful test takers, it necessarily implicated the intentional discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Right Act. The Court held that “race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute.” The employer cannot justify its actions based solely on the fact that the potential plaintiffs can prove only a prima facie case of discrimination; rather, the employer must also consider its potential defenses before making a race-conscious decision. Because that “strong evidence” was lacking in this case, the Court not only reversed summary judgment for the City it directed that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability.

The Background

According to the Court’s decision, the City Charter required the City to promote firefighters into officer positions based on how they ranked on promotional examinations. The examination consisted of both written and oral portions and required a certain amount of prior job experience and education. The experienced consulting firm hired to design the test analyzed the jobs at issue by interviewing, questioning and observing the incumbent officers.

At every stage of the job analyses, IOS, by deliberate choice, oversampled minority firefighters to ensure that the results—which IOS would use to develop the examinations—would not unintentionally favor white candidates. . . .

For each test, IOS compiled a list of training manuals, Department procedures, and other materials to use as sources for the test questions. IOS presented the proposed sources to the New Haven fire chief and assistant fire chief for their approval. Then, using the approved sources, IOS drafted a multiple-choice test for each position. [Each test consisted of 100 questions and] was written below a 10th grade reading level. After IOS prepared the tests, the City opened a 3-month study period. It gave candidates a list that identified the source material for the questions, including the specific chapters from which the questions were taken.

IOS developed the oral examinations as well. These concentrated on job skills and abilities. Using the job analysis information, IOS wrote hypothetical situations to test incident-command skills, firefighting tactics, interpersonal skills, leadership, and management ability, among other things. Candidates would be presented with these hypotheticals and asked to respond before a panel of three assessors.

All of the assessors were from outside Connecticut and received special training. “Sixty-six percent of the panelists were minorities, and each of the nine three-member assessment panels contained two minority members” (i.e., one white, one Hispanic and one black).

Following the November 2003 examinations, 34 out of the 77 (or 44%) of the candidates passed the lieutenant examination: 25 out of 43 [58%] whites, 6 out of 19 [ 31.5%] blacks, and 3 out of 15 [20%] Hispanics. Because there were 8 vacancies at the time of the examination, the top ten scores were eligible for immediate promotion. All of them were white.

As for the captain exam, 22 of the 41 (or 54%) of the candidates passed: 16 out of 25 whites (64%), 3 out of 8 blacks (37.5%), and 3 out of 8 Hispanics (37.5%). Because there were seven captain vacancies at the time of the examination, 9 candidates were eligible to be considered for an immediate promotion to captain—7 whites and 2 Hispanics.

Although the City had a contractual right to a technical report from the consultant analyzing the test results, instead the City immediately objected to the facial racial disparity in the results. The City told the Civil Service Board that the test results had a disparate impact. Some firefighters – without knowing how they scored – advocated certifying the test results because they had spent a lot of money buying studying materials and a lot of time studying and a new test would take years to develop and administer. Others objected on the grounds that the study materials were too long and expensive. Some suggested that a validation study be conducted.

The Board ultimately requested the consultant to explain how the test had been developed and conducted and also requested an outside panel of experts to review the situation. One of those experts was a competitor of the consultant and he opined that the test results were not surprising, criticized the lack of local input into the test questions and suggested the use of an assessment center which required the candidates to demonstrate their knowledge instead of merely answering questions on a test or in an interview. Another witness – who was black – from the Department of Homeland Security said that the test reviewed relevant and job related information. He suggested that the disparity was somewhat related to the fact that more white candidates took the exam than black candidates. The final “expert” was a college professor who know nothing about firefighting, but who opined that “regardless of what kind of written test we give in this country . . . we can just about predict how many people will pass who are members of under-represented groups. And your data are not that inconsistent with what predictions would say were the case.” Although the results may have been influenced by the fact that the job analysis surveys were initially completed mostly by white firefighters, “no matter what test the City had administered, it would have revealed “a disparity between blacks and whites, Hispanics and whites,” particularly on a written test.” The Board deadlocked on whether to certify the test results, which meant that the results were not certified.

The Litigation

The plaintiffs – 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter – filed suit under §§ 1983 and 1985 and under Title VII against the City and other defendants. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants and it was affirmed on appeal. The Second Circuit then considered whether to reconsider the decision en banc, but voted 7-6 against reconsideration.

The issue as framed by the Supreme Court:

The City’s actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City chose not to certify the examination results because of the statistical disparity based on race—i.e., how minority candidates had performed when compared to white candidates. As the District Court put it, the City rejected the test results because “too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted were the lists to be certified . . . Without some other justification, this express, race-based decisionmaking violates Title VII’s command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual’s race.

While the lower courts found that intentional discrimination could be excused in order to potentially avoid disparate impact liability under Title VII, the Court did not think that this was necessarily so. The plaintiffs argued that it should never be a defense to intentional racial discrimination that the employer was attempting to avoid unintentional discrimination. The defense argued that good faith efforts to avoid unintentional disparate impact should excuse intentional race discrimination. The court found both parties’ arguments to be simplistic and unrealistic. It rejected racial quotas or employer practices seeking a preferred racial balance. It also refused to prefer the disparate treatment provisions of Title VII over the disparate impact provisions.

If an employer cannot rescore a test based on the candidates’ race, §2000e–2(l), then it follows a fortiori that it may not take the greater step of discarding the test altogether to achieve a more desirable racial distribution of promotion-eligible candidates—absent a strong basis in evidence that the test was deficient and that discarding the results is necessary to avoid violating the disparate impact provision. Restricting an employer’s ability to discard test results (and thereby discriminate against qualified candidates on the basis of their race) also is in keeping with Title VII’s express protection of bona fide promotional examinations.
. . .
We consider, therefore, whether the purpose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination. Our task is to provide guidance to employers and courts for situations when these two prohibitions could be in conflict absent a rule to reconcile them. In providing this guidance our decision must be consistent with the important purpose of Title VII—that the workplace be an environment free of discrimination, where race is not a barrier to opportunity.

In reaching a compromise, the Court considered decisions in other areas where it had permitted intentional discrimination. “The Court has held that certain government actions to remedy past racial discrimination—actions that are themselves based on race—are constitutional only where there is a “‘strong basis in evidence’” that the remedial actions were necessary.”

Applying the strong-basis-in-evidence standard to Title VII gives effect to both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions, allowing violations of one in the name of compliance with the other only in certain, narrow circumstances. The standard leaves ample room for employers’ voluntary compliance efforts, which are essential to the statutory scheme and to Congress’s efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination. . . . And the standard appropriately constrains employers’ discretion in making race-based decisions: It limits that discretion to cases in which there is a strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability, but it is not so restrictive that it allows employers to act only when there is a provable, actual violation.

In this case, the City defended its actions on the grounds that the test results had a disparate impact on a racial class (i.e., a neutral practice has a statistically disproportionate affect on a particular group). However, the Court pointed out that the disparate statistics constituted only a prima facie case and that the employer could have defended the results by showing that the test was job related and consistent with business necessity. At that point, the plaintiffs would have had to show that “the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs.” In this case, there was no dispute that the group opposing the test results could have met a prima facie case and there was overwhelming evidence that the City could have met its burden of showing the job-related/business necessity defense. There was, however, a question about whether a reasonable alternative existed. The Court rejected challenges that weighing the written and oral portions of the exam differently might have produced different results or that utilizing an assessment center would have been available to the City at the time or produced a different result.

The problem for respondents is that a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability—essentially, a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity, . . . and nothing more—is far from a strong basis in evidence that the City would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the results. That is because the City could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served the City’s needs but that the City refused to adopt. §2000e–2(k)(1)(A), (C). We conclude there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects.
. . .
On the record before us, there is no genuine dispute that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results. In other words, there is no evidence —let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.

The Court did not address the plaintiffs’ Equal Protection arguments and did

not hold that meeting the strong-basis-in-evidence standard would satisfy the Equal Protection Clause in a future case. . . . Nor do we question an employer’s affirmative efforts to ensure that all groups have a fair opportunity to apply for promotions and to participate in the process by which promotions will be made. But once that process has been established and employers have made clear their selection criteria, they may not then invalidate the test results, thus upsetting an employee’s legitimate expectation not to be judged on the basis of race. Doing so, absent a strong basis in evidence of an impermissible disparate impact, amounts to the sort of racial preference

While employers may consider how to make its employment testing and processes more fair, “under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://http://Ricci.

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

Supreme Court: ADEA Does Not Allow Mixed Motive Theory; Plaintiff Must Prove Age Was “But For” Reason for Adverse Action.

This morning, a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is different from Title VII in another important respect: While Title VII permits a plaintiff to prove that illegal discrimination was a motivating factor (albeit not the sole factor) in his or her adverse employment action, ADEA requires the plaintiff to prove that s/he would not have suffered the adverse action “but for” his or her age. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441 (6/18/09).

In Gross, the plaintiff alleged that he was demoted primarily because of his age, although he admitted that his age was not the only factor. This is often known as a mixed-motive case and is a theory that was established in the plurality opinion of the Price-Waterhouse v. Hopkins case. The trial court instructed the jury that it must rule for the employee if he proved that “his age was a motivating factor in the demotion decision,” and “that age was a motivating factor if it played a part in the demotion.” The trial court also instructed the jury to return a verdict for the employer “if it proved that it would have demoted Gross regardless of age.” In other words, the employer bore the burden of proving that age was not the primary motivating factor even if it was a small factor. The jury returned a verdict for Gross, awarding him$46,945 in lost compensation. The employer appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed.

Justice Thomas began his opinion by noting that ‘[t]he question presented by the [employee] in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of age discrimination [as opposed to circumstantial evidence] in order to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction in a suit brought under the” ADEA. However, the Court never needed to reach that question because it held that “such a jury instruction is never proper in an ADEA case.”

“

Unlike Title VII, the ADEA’s text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor. Moreover, Congress neglected to add such a provision to the ADEA when it amended Title VII to add §§2000e–2(m) and 2000e–5(g)(2)(B), even though it contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways, see Civil Rights Act of 1991 . . . We cannot ignore Congress’ decision to amend Title VII’s relevant provisions but not make similar changes to the ADEA. When Congress amends one statutory provision but not another, it is presumed to have acted intentionally.”

“The ADEA provides, in relevant part, that ‘[i]t shall be unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.’ 29 U. S. C. §623(a)(1) (emphasis added). . . . To establish a disparate treatment claim under the plain language of the ADEA, therefore, a plaintiff must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse decision.”

“[Nothing in the statute’s text indicates that Congress has carved out an exception to that rule for a subset of ADEA cases. Where the statutory text is ‘silent on the allocation of the burden of persuasion,’ we “begin with the ordinary default rule that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims.”

Moreover, “the burden of persuasion necessary to establish employer liability is the same in alleged mixed-motives cases as in any other ADEA disparate-treatment action. A plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged employer decision.”

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-441.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.

Franklin County Appeals Court: Doesn’t Pay to Be Too Clever By Half

Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendant employer and ordered the rescission of a severance agreement where a typographical error in the agreement provided the employee with twelve extra months of severance pay which the employer had not intended to provide. Faivre v. DEX Corp. Northeast, 2009-Ohio-2660 (6/9/09). The employee admittedly had been told that the employer was only offering him three months of severance and he indicated that he would need to have at least twelve months. When he reviewed the agreement in detail after returning home, he realized that the offered severance agreement (which had been drafted by the employer and had already been signed by the employer’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources) promised to pay him severance through 2007 instead of three months later in 2006. Rather than clarifying the issue with the employer, he instead signed and returned the agreement. Quickly realizing its error, the employer immediately asked him to sign a revised page and said that if he did not agree to reform the agreement, it would consider the agreement to be rescinded due to mistake.

Instead, the employee filed suit against the employer for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the employer, but ordered a reformation of the contract to provide for the three months of severance pay initially offered by the employer. Both sides appealed. On appeal the court of appeals agreed that the parole evidence rule – which typically would bar extrinsic or outside evidence to contradict the clear terms of a contract – did not bar evidence of mistake. In this case, the employer made a mistake and the employee was admittedly aware of the mistake.

The court also agreed that the trial court had authority to reform the contract. However, the court found that was not a proper remedy because there had never been a mutual agreement on the amount of severance. The employer offered three months and the employee wanted twelve. Because there had never been a “meeting of the minds,” there could be no contract to resurrect by reformation.

The court agreed to rescind the contract altogether (meaning the employee would receive no severance). This was pursuant to a Restatement provision:

Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable
by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake . . .

Thus, unless the mistaken party bears the risk of a mistake, a court may rescind a contract if: (1) one party made a mistake at the time the parties executed the contract, (2) the mistake had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that was adverse to the mistaken party, and (3) the other party had reason to know of the mistake.

The court rejected the employee’s argument that the employer had assumed the risk of mistake when it unilaterally prepared and presented the agreement. First, the employee knew about the mistake because the agreement’s terms did not match what he had been told in his exit interview. Finally, the court refused to put the risk on the employer even though it negligently drafted the agreement: “Pursuant to Section 154 of the Second Restatement of Contracts:

A party bears the risk of a mistake when

(a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the
parties, or
(b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that
he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to
which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as
sufficient, or
(c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the
ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

. . .

Subsection (c) is a "catchall provision" that permits a court to allocate the
risk of a mistake to the mistaken party if, under the totality of the circumstances, it would be more equitable or reasonable to do so. . . . " '[A] party's negligence is immaterial where the mistake is in the expression of the contract and the other party knew of the mistake and took advantage of it.' "

. . .

As we concluded above, [the employee] had reason to know that the severance agreement contained a typographical error. Instead of seeking clarification regarding the length of the severance period, [the employee] attempted to take advantage of [the employer’s] error. Therefore, equity and reasonableness do not require us to place the risk of the mistake on [the employer] due to its negligence.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2009/2009-ohio-2660.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 Announces Consent Decree Settling Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit With Two West Virginia Employers and Obtaining $115K for Three Women.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had reached a $115,000 settlement in a sex discrimination lawsuit it had filed against West Virginia employers, Brooks Run Mining Company and staffing firm Neal & Associations, in federal court (Case No. 5:08-CV-0071). In its lawsuit, the EEOC had alleged that the defendant employers violated Title VII when female “security guards as a class were discriminated against because of their sex. The EEOC asserted that once the women complained about sexual harassment, they were prevented – either by layoffs or transfers – from working at the Brooks Run Cucumber mine site, although security jobs were available to men.”

According to the EEOC, “the three-year consent decree settling the suit provides for a monetary settlement to three women” who were “former security guards at the Cucumber mine site. In addition to monetary relief, the decree provides for significant remedial relief, including promoting supervisor accountability. The settlement also requires yearly training for all management staff on employee rights and employer obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on sex discrimination.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-11-09a.html.

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

Ohio Department of Insurance Explains How Ohio’s Newly-Amended Mini-COBRA Coordinates with Federal Stimulus Act.

Last week, the Ohio Department of Insurance issued guidelines about how employees of small employers (i.e., 20 or fewer employees) who are involuntarily terminated may qualify for continued health insurance that is 65% subsidized by the federal government. Governor Strickland signed legislation which amended Ohio’s mini-COBRA (at Ohio Revised Code §3923.38 and §1751.53) and will affect health insurance policies issued or renewed for small employers after April 1, 2009. Among other changes, the statute extends the continuation period from six months to one year. The Department of Insurance also includes model notices on its website which all small employers and non-ERISA self-insured employers must use to notify laid off and other involuntarily terminated employees of their rights under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) to continue their health insurance with 65% of the cost subsidized by the federal government. Insurers are also required to notify employees receiving continuation coverage since February 17 of their ARRA rights.

Unlike the subsidized COBRA continuation under the ARRA, under Ohio’s mini-COBRA, small employers are not required to front 65% of the insurance premium; rather, the insurance company will handle the former employee’s continuation payments and also receive the tax credits. Also unlike the federal ARRA, employees of small Ohio employers do not get a free “do-over” or extended eligibility period if they failed to elect continuation coverage within the deadlines right after they were terminated.

Insomniacs may read the full Department of Insurance revised guidelines at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRAStimulusSmallEmployers.pdf. The DOI’s model form can be accessed at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRAContinuationCoverageElectionNotice.doc. Other information about ARRA and Ohio’s mini-COBRA law are available at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRA.htm.

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: Ohio Legislature Can Prohibit Local City Residency Requirement for Own Employees.

This morning a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio General Assembly can prohibit political subdivisions and municipalities – including those organized under home rule charters – from requiring city employees to reside within city limits. Lima v. State, 2009-Ohio-2597. In that case, the challenged state statute -- Ohio Revised Code § 9.481(B)(1) -- states that “no political subdivision shall require any of its employees, as a condition of employment, to reside in any specific area of the state.” The cities of Lima and Akron challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which conflicted with local ordinances. However, the Court’s majority upheld the constitutionality of the statute: “R.C. 9.481 was enacted pursuant to Section 34 and that it prevails over conflicting local laws, because no other provision of the Constitution can ‘limit or impair’ laws enacted pursuant to Section 34.”

Insomniacs can read the Court’s full opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2597.pdf.

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

Sixth Circuit: Title VII Does NOT Protect Family and Friends of Charging Parties

This morning, a divided en banc Sixth Circuit reversed a prior panel decision rendered on March 31, 2008 in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, and held that Title VII only protects from retaliation individuals who have engaged in protected conduct (i.e., filed a Charge of Discrimination, opposed discrimination or participated in an investigation, etc.) and does NOT protect the family members and friends of individuals who have engaged in protected conduct. (The earlier decision was summarized here on April 10, 2008 at Sixth Circuit: Title VII Protects Family and Friends of Employees who File EEOC Charge).

As previously explained, the employer was alleged to have fired the plaintiff just three weeks after his fiance filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against the employer. He did not allege that he personally had engaged in any protected conduct, but rather, that his termination was in retaliation for the protected conduct of his fiance. In turn, the employer asserted that he was terminated because of his job performance.

The Court examined the anti-retaliation language in Title VII:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

There was nothing in this language about protecting individuals who did not engage in any protected activity under the Act. The majority found the language clear and unambiguous and elected to defer to Congressional intent to not enlarge the protected class of individuals under the statute.

In essence, plaintiff and the EEOC request that we become the first circuit court to hold that Title VII creates a cause of action for third-party retaliation on behalf of friends and family members who have not engaged in protected activity. However, we decline the invitation to rewrite the law.

. . .

In sum, no circuit court of appeals has held that Title VII creates a claim for third-party retaliation in circumstances where the plaintiff has not engaged personally in any protected activity. Although plaintiff and the EEOC argue that the language of § 704(a) is ambiguous and that enforcement of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, we disagree, as do the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which have soundly rejected such a cause of action.

However, the court recognized the tension with the policy argument endorsed by the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), when it stated:

We conclude that the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In the present context that means that the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Nonetheless, the Court distinguished Burlington because the plaintiff in that case had engaged in protected conduct and the question presented to the court was the scope of retaliatory behavior. "We must look to what Congress actually enacted, not what we believe Congress might have passed were it confronted with the facts at bar. For the reasons we have laid out, it was not “absurd” for Congress to limit the class of persons who are entitled to sue to employees who personally opposed a practice, made a charge, assisted, or participated in an investigation. Our interpretation does not undermine the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose because retaliation is still actionable, but only in a suit by a primary
actor who engaged in protected activity and not by a passive bystander."

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0202p-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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney.

Ohio Supreme Court: All State Age Discrimination Claims Are Governed by § 4112.14(C)’s Deference to Arbitration Procedures and Cannot Be Re-Litigated.

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court held in Meyer v. United Parcel Service, Inc., that the prohibition in § 4112.14(C) on pursuing an age discrimination lawsuit when an arbitration remedy is otherwise available to the plaintiff applies to all age discrimination claims brought under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. If this seems complicated, that is because it is.

In Meyer, the plaintiff was fired – for a third time – by UPS after 25 years of employment. Having been reinstated twice before by using the grievance process in the collective bargaining agreement, he again filed a grievance, but it was denied and his discharge was upheld – by a panel of union members and management -- for being due to just cause under the bargaining agreement. He also filed a lawsuit alleging workers compensation retaliation and later amended his complaint to add claims for age discrimination (in that he was replaced by an employee decades younger than himself) under Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99 and public policy. Both claims were tried to a jury and he was awarded $336,208 in back pay, punitive damages and pre-judgment interest and $135,147 in attorney fees and court costs. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that the workers compensation claim should not have been tried to a jury, but rejected the employer’s argument that the §4112.99 age discrimination claim should have been barred by the arbitration prohibition provision in §4112.14(C) and remanded the case to the trial court. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed only to resolve the dispute involving the age discrimination claim.

Under Ohio law, plaintiffs may chose between a variety of age discrimination statutes. Section 4112.02(N) provides that an

aggrieved individual may enforce the individual’s rights relative to discrimination on the basis of age as provided for in this section by instituting a civil action, within one hundred eighty days after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice occurred, in any court with jurisdiction for any legal or equitable relief that will effectuate the individual’s rights. (italics added).

This provision authorizes compensatory and punitive damages for successful plaintiffs. However, a plaintiff who files a lawsuit under §4112.02(N) “is barred, with respect to the practices complained of, from instituting a civil action under section 4112.14 of the Revised Code and from filing a charge with the commission under section 4112.05 of the Revised Code.”

Section 4112.05 permits individuals to file Charges of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission within six months of the alleged discrimination.

Section 4112.14 (formerly codified at § 4101.17) prohibits age discrimination in hiring and firing, permits the filing of a lawsuit by an aggrieved employee or applicant, and provides reinstatement, back pay and attorneys fees to successful plaintiff. However, plaintiffs who file under § 4112.14 may not file a Charge of Discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission or file a lawsuit under § 4112.02(N). This section also provides that the remedies available “are coexistent with remedies available pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code,” but it seems unlikely that plaintiffs under §4112.14 may obtain compensatory or punitive damages. In addition, when this statute was codified at § 4101.17, the statute of limitations for these age discrimination claims were held to be six years. Since this statute was recodified at § 4112.14, it is no longer clear whether the limitations period for claims brought under § 4112.14 are still six years, but the Supreme Court has refused to confirm this or limit the claims to 180 days as in §4112.02(N). Importantly for the Meyer case, § 4112.14(C) provides that § 4112.14 lawsuits and other lawsuits brought

pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code shall not be available in the case of discharges where the employee has available to the employee the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause. (italics added).

Notably, § 4112.14(C) does not specifically address claims brought under § 4112.99 (but, rather, addresses only claims brought under §§ 4112.01 to 4112.11).

Section 4112.99 provides that “Whoever violates this chapter is subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief.” This is a general statute and must be paired with a more specific statute, like §4112.02(N) or § 4112.14. In any event, this general provision authorizes compensatory and punitive damages regardless of whether it is paired with more specific statutes like § 4112.02(N) or § 4112.14. This is important because there is an argument that §4112.14 does not otherwise authorize compensatory or punitive damages. Plaintiffs who bring an action under § 4112.99 need not specify which more specific statute supports their claims.

In Meyer, the Court held that age discrimination lawsuits may not be brought “where the employee has available to the employee the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause.” Therefore, even if the employee filed a lawsuit within 180 days under §4112.02(N) and even thought that statute does not mention arbitration proceedings, that age discrimination lawsuit is still governed by § 4112.14(C). In addition, even though Meyer’s grievance was not arbitrated by a single arbitrator, the bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure was equivalent to an arbitration and, thus, was covered by § 4112.14(C) arbitration clause.

Friends of the court filed briefs in the Meyer case urging the Court to address other questions posed by §4112.14, such as the length of its limitations period and whether it authorizes compensatory and punitive damages. However, the Court declined to do so. Instead, the reasoning of the Court was that all age discrimination claims brought under §4112.99 are subject to §4112.02(N) and §4112.14 and because §4112.14(C) prohibits age discrimination claims where the plaintiff had arbitration available to him or her, no age discrimination claims can be brought under §4112.99 if an arbitrator – or effective equivalent – upheld the discharge under a just cause standard. This might indicate that plaintiffs should only file claims under §4112.02(N) and not mention § 4112.99, but the syllabus of the Court’s opinion – which states the law of the case – does not limit its holding to §4112.99 claims. Rather, the syllabus refers to all age discrimination claims.

Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2463.pdf.

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

Sixth Circuit Revives Hostile Workplace Sexual Harassment Claim But Finds Plaintiff Failed to Utilize All Options To Report Supervisor Harassment

On Friday, the Sixth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for a Cleveland area employer on a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim brought by an employee who had resigned four years earlier. Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 08-3337 (6th Cir. 5/22/09). During the brief four months of her employment, “she complained to her immediate supervisor about the crude and offensive language and conduct of her co-workers, but her complaints fell on deaf ears. Disgusted, she resigned” in part because of the office celebration leading up to the OSU-Miami national collegiate championship football game on January 2, 2003. The Court found that the plaintiff produced enough evidence that she was subjected to an objectively and subjectively hostile work environment even though much of the offensive conduct and comments were not directed specifically at her, but were facially offensive to most women. Moreover, the company was on notice about the offensive conduct by her co-workers because she complained to her supervisor about it and because her supervisor witnessed and participated in some of it. Nonetheless, the Court agreed that the employer would not be liable for strictly supervisory harassment allegations because there was no tangible job actions and because the plaintiff failed to utilize alternative methods of reporting the alleged harassment by her supervisor based on unsupported suspicions of retaliation.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired into an inside sales position and worked from a cubicle where employees had very little privacy, could overhear others’ conversations and see their computer monitors. The plaintiff “describes the atmosphere at the Cleveland office of CHR during her four-month tenure as being much like “a guys’ locker room” characterized by unprofessional behavior on the part of both males and females, and an environment that was hostile to women. She testified to the prevalent use of foul language by mostly male coworkers who openly and loudly referred to female customers, truck drivers, coworkers and others as bitches, whores, sluts, dykes and cunts. She testified that male and female co-workers viewed sexually explicit pictures on their computers (although the only incident she could specifically recall was a sexually explicit picture on co-worker Angela Sarris’ computer during the Christmas holidays), and that male coworkers left pornographic magazines lying open on their desks. Gallagher testified that, on several occasions, Starosto brought in nude pictures of his girlfriend in different sexual poses and shared those pictures with several of his male co-workers who occasionally brought in, and shared, pictures of their own with him. She testified that her male co-workers traded sexual jokes and engaged in graphic discussions about their sexual liaisons, fantasies and preferences in her presence on a daily basis. Gallagher also testified that some of the employees drank beer in the office in the afternoon on Fridays, that some male co-workers came in to the office on Saturdays (when branch manager Greg Quast was not there) without a shirt on, that one woman planned her entire wedding at the office, and that another planned her baby shower at the office.”

As for the offensive conduct towards the Plaintiff, she testified that she was once called a “bitch” and another time a co-worker said that the company satisfied two quotas when she was hired: the female quota and the “fat” quota. She further alleged that a co-worker “made several derogatory comments about her weight, and [another employee] once referred to [her] as a “heifer” with “milking udders,” and “moo”ed when she walked by his desk. [She] testified that on one Saturday when she was scheduled to work, three male co-workers came into the office following a session at a gym in the building next door. [One] co-worker, who was wearing only a towel and announced that he was “commando” (meaning that he was wearing no underwear) sat on [a nearby] desk, displaying his whole thigh, and talked with the others about anal sex, their enjoyment of it and how [an employee’s] girlfriend objected to it. On the next business day, [the plaintiff] complained to [her supervisor] about this incident and told him she did not want to work on Saturdays anymore.” She also described how a co-worker would repeatedly physically block her from walking down an aisle until she spoke to him.

The Company “has policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender, and prohibiting the electronic dissemination of sexually explicit materials through e-mail or the Internet. [The plaintiff] received copies of these policies on her first day of work. The sexual harassment policy requires employees to report complaints of sexual harassment to the legal department, the branch resources manager, or the branch manager. It provides names and phone numbers for the legal department and the branch resources manager. Although [she] signed an acknowledgment stating that she read the policy and agreed to comply with its terms, she testified at deposition that she did not recall reading it before signing it, that she did not keep a copy of it and that she could not recall asking anyone for a copy. The sexual harassment and email and Internet policies are also available on the company’s internal website, along with an anonymous third-party toll-free hotline and an anonymous e-mail service for reporting incidents of discrimination or inappropriate behavior.”

The Company also required employees “to sign certificates stating that they have complied with CHR’s policies during the preceding year – and that if they have any questions about those policies, to contact the Compliance Officer before signing the certificate. Although [she] testifies that the sexually offensive conduct occurred from the beginning of her employment, she signed a compliance certificate on November 25, 2002, but never contacted the Compliance Officer regarding offensive conduct. Rather, [the plaintiff] testified that she complained frequently to [her supervisor] about the unprofessional and sexually offensive workplace conduct to little or no avail. Although [her supervisor] had his own office, he seldom used it; and he usually required [her] to voice her complaints to him at his work station. Often, he would simply yell at the offending employee to stop the conduct because it was bothering [her] which, she says, subjected her only to more ridicule. Although [she] was aware of the anonymous 800 tip line, she refused to use it because some coworkers and [her supervisor] referred to the number as “the waw-waw line” and one co-worker told her not to call the line because the last person who did, lost her job.”

After the plaintiff received a job offer from a prior employer, she claims that she decided to resign on January 3, 2003. “This was the day of the National Championship football game between Ohio State University and the Miami Hurricanes. She testified that a female co-worker brought Jello shots into the office that day and that, in the early afternoon, many coworkers stopped working and started drinking. When Gallagher left, she discovered that she had a flat tire, went back into the office and asked for help changing it. Several drunk male co-workers laughed at her and when they left the building, they got into their trucks and “flipped her off” when passing her by.” She later formally submitted her letter of resignation on January 8 and began her new job on January 13, 2003.

The district court held that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to support her prima facie case of sexual harassment or discrimination under state or federal law. “First, the evidence was deemed insufficient to support a finding that the harassment Gallagher experienced was based on her sex. The court found that most of the offensive language and conduct was “indiscriminate;” i.e., was not directed at plaintiff, and was not shown to have occurred because Gallagher is a woman. Second, the harassing conduct, albeit subjectively offensive to Gallagher, was deemed not to be so objectively severe and pervasive as to have unreasonably interfered with her work performance. Third, the court concluded that [the employer] could not be held liable for offensive conduct engaged in by its employees because Gallagher failed to take advantage of several available avenues for reporting the conduct to upper management, but instead reported it only to her immediate supervisor, who she acknowledged could not handle the situation.” The Court of Appeals reversed.

There were instances in the workplace when Gallagher was repeatedly called a “bitch” by a co-worker in anger, was referred to by another as a “heifer” with “milking udders,” and was taunted by a male co-worker wearing nothing but a towel around his waist when she was the only female in the office. These incidents, in which offensive conduct was directed at Gallagher, reflect sex-discriminatory animus. Yet, the record suggests that much of the other highly offensive conduct was not directed at Gallagher. Among the commonplace offensive occurrences, Gallagher complained of: co-workers’ vulgar descriptions of female customers, associates and even friends as “bitches,” “whores,” “sluts,” “dykes,” and “cunts;” co-workers’ joint ogling and discussions of obscene photographs and pornographic magazines; and co-workers’ explicit conversations about their own sexual practices and strip club exploits. Gallagher could not avoid exposure to these offensive behaviors because they occurred in close proximity to her work station, where she was required to be. Still, the offensive conduct does not appear to have been motivated by Gallagher’s presence or by the fact that she is a woman.”

The District Court relied Williams v. General Motors Corp., 187 F.3d 553, 565 (6th Cir. 1999), for the proposition that the “based on sex” element makes it incumbent on [the plaintiff] to show that the offensive conduct “occurred because she is a woman.” However, that reliance was misplaced because “in Williams, the court was addressing a different question, i.e., whether harassing conduct that is not sexually explicit may nonetheless satisfy the “based on sex” requirement. . . . In other words, even non-sexual harassing conduct may be deemed to be based on sex if the plaintiff is otherwise able to show that, but for the fact of her sex, she would not have been the object of the harassment.”

Here, in contrast, most of the complained of harassment just summarized—both conduct directed at Gallagher and indiscriminate conduct—is explicitly sexual and patently degrading of women. The natural effect of exposure to such offensive conduct is embarrassment, humiliation and degradation, irrespective of the harasser’s motivation—especially and all the more so if the captive recipient of the harassment is a woman. In connection with such evidence, it is hardly necessary for Gallagher to otherwise show that the conduct evinces anti-female animus; it is obvious. Hence, even though members of both sexes were exposed to the offensive conduct in the Cleveland office, considering the nature of the patently degrading and anti-female nature of the harassment, it stands to reason that women would suffer, as a result of the exposure,greater disadvantage in the terms and conditions of their employment than men.

“The district court, in evaluating the “based on sex” element, focused too narrowly on the motivation for the harassers’ offensive conduct rather than on the effects of the conduct on the victim-recipient.” As for the “equal opportunity harasser” defense, “a harasser whose offensive conduct afflicts both men and women is not an “equal opportunity curser” if the conduct is more offensive to women than men.”

The Court also found the trial court to have erred in determining “that the harassment was not shown to be so severe and pervasive as to interfere with Gallagher’s job performance.” The Court reiterated that the standard puts “the focus of the objective/subjective inquiry should remain on (1) whether a reasonable person would find the environment objectively hostile, and (2) whether the plaintiff subjectively found the conduct ‘severe or pervasive.’ Further, . . . this evaluation of the work environment must take into account the totality of the circumstances. “[E]ven where individual instances of sexual harassment do not on their own create a hostile environment, the accumulated effect of such incidents may result in a Title VII violation.” While the trial “court emphasized that most of the offensive conduct was not directed” at the plaintiff, which is not an irrelevant consideration, the “court appears to have ignored the fact that, due to the configuration of the Cleveland workplace, it was practically impossible for [the plaintiff] to avoid her co-workers’ offensive conduct. Whether the offensive conduct was intentionally directed specifically at [her] or not, the fact remains that she had no means of escaping her co-workers’ loud insulting language and degrading conversations; she was unavoidably exposed to it. Her complaints to co-workers and her supervisor were not only ignored, but actually tended to exacerbate the harassment.”

Further, the district court erroneously insisted on a showing that the harassment was both subjectively and objectively severe and pervasive; whereas the Williams standard requires a showing that the environment is objectively hostile and the harassment subjectively severe and pervasive. The district court had no trouble concluding there was a triable issue as to whether the harassment was subjectively severe and pervasive. The next question thus should have been whether a reasonable person could have found the environment objectively hostile. Considering the totality of the circumstances as described in Gallagher’s deposition, the conclusion is inescapable that a reasonable person could have found the Cleveland office—permeated with vulgar language, demeaning conversations and images, and palpable anti-female animus—objectively hostile. The district court reached a contrary conclusion by erroneously limiting its consideration only to some instances of abusive conduct, instead of considering the workplace as a whole.

Moreover, the district court also erred in requiring evidence that [the plaintiff's] work performance suffered measurably as a result of the harassment. The court placed inordinate weight on Gallagher’s testimony that she was able to meet her daily and weekly quotas and that her work performance was rated average to above average. In finding that [the plaintiff] failed to present any evidence that the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work, the court ignored her testimony that, from day one in the Cleveland office, she was “horrified” by the loudness, constant swearing and vulgar language, and that she “left there every day crying.” Considering Gallagher’s description of the offensive conduct to which she was exposed, her reaction can hardly be dismissed as implausible, unreasonable, exaggerated or hypersensitive. Nor is it improbable that the hostility and antagonism she experienced rendered her work more difficult. In Williams, the court made it clear that a plaintiff need not prove a tangible decline in her work productivity; only “that the harassment made it more difficult to do the job.” Based on the instant record, a reasonable jury could certainly find that the complained of harassment made it more difficult for Gallagher to do her job.

The Court also disagreed that the employer could not be held liable for the harassment. “Evaluating [the employer’s] liability for the offensive environment in the Cleveland office thus depends fundamentally on whether [her] hostile work
environment claims are based on co-worker harassment or supervisor harassment. [She] insists the answer is “both,” and the record supports her position.” The Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor “was present during and witnessed much of the conduct, participated in some of it, received reports from [the plaintiff] of incidents he did not witness, and through his inaction during the four-month period, ostensibly condoned it all. In other words, both co-workers and supervisor were clearly complicit in creating and maintaining the hostile work environment. This is significant.”

Notably, the district court’s analysis of employer liability appears to have been based on the implicit assumption that the case involved only supervisor harassment. If this case were strictly about supervisor harassment, the district court’s analysis would arguably be correct. Applying the law summarized above in Petrosino, it is apparent that [the supervisor’s] participation in the harassment did not ripen into any tangible employment action against [the plaintiff], such as firing or demotion.” Moreover, the plaintiff did “not challenge the facial adequacy of [the employer’s] sexual harassment policy, but maintains she reasonably tried to take advantage of it by reporting her complaints to her office manager . . . . She contends the lack of resulting corrective action demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the policy.” Of “the many means and opportunities available to [her], she employed only one. Limiting her reports of harassment to [her supervisor] alone was clearly unreasonable, the district court found, because it had become clear to [her] in her first weeks on the job that [her supervisor] was part of the problem, not the solution.

Indeed, the policy expressly provides alternative avenues for reporting harassment where an employee’s supervisor is involved in the harassment. Yet, despite her knowledge of the alternatives, [the plaintiff] did not report her concerns to any other person in management. As the district court put it, “she chose, instead, to deal with the problem by leaving the company for another, higher-paying job with her previous employer.” The plaintiff’s “decision to leave her employment with [the defendant employer] appears clearly to have been reasonable. However, her failure to take reasonable steps to ensure her employer was actually aware of the harassment and had a chance to correct it before she left undercuts her present effort to impose liability on [the employer] based on supervisory complicity in the harassment.” The Court agreed with this analysis and rejected the plaintiff’s subjective and unwarranted suspicions that she would be retaliated against if she utilized other alternatives of reporting the harassment. “An employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment.”

Nonetheless, even if her claim for supervisory harassment failed, an “employer is vicariously liable for co-worker harassment of which it knew or should have known if it failed to take appropriate remedial action, i.e., if its response manifests indifference or unreasonableness.” In this case, it was undisputed that the plaintiff reported much of the offensive conduct by her co-workers and the supervisor even witnessed and participated in some of it. “The facts substantiate a finding the [supervisor] knew or should have known of the offensive conduct and of [plaintiff’s] objection to it. Yet, in the absence of evidence that this knowledge extended higher up in the chain of management, the question is whether [the supervisor’s] knowledge is properly imputed to [the employer].. As explained above, [his] knowledge alone is insufficient to warrant imposing liability on [the employer] for supervisor harassment, but liability for co-worker harassment is different.”

An employer is deemed to have notice of harassment reported to any supervisor or department head who has been authorized—or is reasonably believed by a
complaining employee to have been authorized—to receive and respond to or forward such complaints to management.

The parties disagreed about the effectiveness and reasonableness of the supervisor’s reaction to the plaintiff’s complaints about her co-workers. “Because a reasonable jury could find that [the employer] knew or should have known of the sexual harassment [she] experienced and yet responded with manifest indifference or unreasonably, the district court’s conclusion that the premises for employer liability are lacking is erroneous.”

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0184p-06.pdf.

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

Sixth Circuit: Managers’ Exempt Status Was Destroyed by Employer’s Recoupment of Overpayment of Incentive Bonuses.

Today, a unanimous Sixth Circuit addressed the Fair Labor Standards Act exempt status regulations in a class action lawsuit brought in Columbus alleging that the employer violated the salary basis regulations and owed the Plaintiffs overtime compensation. Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., Nos. 07-4437/4438 (6th Cir. 5/19/09). The Court addressed compensation paid both before and after the revised FLSA regulations were issued by the Department of Labor in August 2004. The Plaintiffs were paid a mix of base salary and incentive bonuses. The Plaintiffs challenged employer policies which permitted the employer to recoup prior overpayments of incentive bonuses from employee salaries and actual deductions made from employee salaries in 2005 to recoup such incentive bonus overpayments. The employer’s compensation plan changed in 2006 to “hold back” 20% of potential incentive bonuses for possible future recoupment. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court that the actual deductions for “bonus recoupment” impermissibly reduced the Plaintiffs’ base salaries in 2005 due to the quality or quantity of their work and was not a permissible recoupment of an overpayment or advancement of wages or other compensation.

On July 10, 2007, District Judge Frost “granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding “that the deductions from the salaries of eight Plaintiffs were deductions resulting from ‘variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed,’ in violation of the salary-basis test.” Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, No. 2:06-CV-99, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49777, at *42 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2007) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a)).. . . . In his review of Plaintiffs’ overtime claims, the district court undertook a thorough three-part analysis. First, the district court determined the effect of the” DOL’s August 2004 salary-basis regulations in which “only an “actual practice of making improper deductions demonstrates that the employer did not intend to pay employees on a salary basis.’” Id. at *22 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 541.603(a)). This meant that Plaintiffs’ claims covering the period of time before August 23, 2004 would be analyzed under the” Supreme Court’s 1997 opinion in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), which held that “the salary-basis test denies exempt status “if there is either an actual practice of making . . . deductions [based on variations in quality or quantity of work performed] or an employment policy that creates a ‘significant likelihood’ of such deductions.” Claims involving pay periods after August 2004 were to be governed by the DOL’s new regulation. Second, the district court determined that the employer did not violate the Auer test. Finally, the district court determined that the deductions from plaintiffs’ salaries in 2005 “specifically related to the quality or quantity of work each Plaintiff had performed” and that the Plaintiffs worked overtime during those pay periods. However, the district court limited Plaintiffs’ recovery to overtime pay for the three pay periods in 2005—the periods ending November 9, November 23, and December 9—during which Life Time Fitness took actual deductions from Plaintiffs’ salaries.” Both sides appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that Auer applied to all pay periods at issue, and instead, agreed with the district court’s decision to apply Auer only to pre-August 2004 pay periods and the “new” DOL regulation to pay periods after August 2004. Nonetheless, the Court reversed the district court’s decision that the employer complied with the Auer test and found that the employer’s pre-August 2004 policies impermissibly subjected the Plaintiffs’ salaries to the risk of deduction. Finally, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision that the employer made impermissible deductions from the employees’ salaries during three pay periods in 2005. Unlike other situations where an employer is permitted to recoup from salary prior advancement of wages or loans to employees,

Life Time Fitness did not provide loans to its employees. To be sure, it did make advance bonus payments. However, to recover overpayments, Life Time Fitness impermissibly dipped into Plaintiffs’ guaranteed salaries. Unlike the situation in both DOL letters [permitting recoupment of wage advances and loans], Life Time Fitness knowingly made salary deductions as part of a pre-designed bonus compensation plan. . . . The deductions were not made to recover irregular salary advances or payments mistakenly made by the payroll department. See id. The plain language of 29 C.F.R. § 541.602 provides, “[s]ubject to the exceptions provided in [section 541.602(b)], an exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a). Section 541.602(b) provides, generally, that deductions may be made for absenteeism, sick leave (in certain circumstances), penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules, unpaid disciplinary suspensions, and, under the DOL letters described above, for mistaken overpayments. But, there is no support for the contention that the FLSA allows for the reduction of guaranteed pay under a purposeful, incentive-driven bonus compensation plan.” (emphasis added).

The Court also rejected the employer’s argument that the incentive bonuses were not based on individual employee performance, but rather, were based on departmental performance, including a number of factors like “her supervisees’ performance, the size and location of a particular club, club-usage volume,” etc. As noted by the district court, “it is strange for Defendant to argue that individual performance was mainly irrelevant to the computation of bonus payments. [Life Time Fitness] offered, after all, that it created the bonus plans ‘[a]s a means for providing incentives for certain of its employees.”

Perhaps if the recoupment deductions had been limited to future bonus payments and had not invaded the employees’ base salaries, the employer would have avoided violating the FLSA.

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0177p-06.pdf

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

Supreme Court: Employers Need Not Recalculate Pension Contributions Following 1978 Passage of Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Today, in a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court – in a 7-2 opinion – ruled that AT&T need not recalculate the pension credits or benefits awarded to female retirees based on maternity leave taken prior to the 1978 passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Hulteen v. AT&T. The Court ruled that the PDA was not retroactive and did not affect pension calculations and pension credits already made to female employees and retirees before its passage. Rather, the pre-PDA pension credits were not discriminatory under § 703(h) of Title VII – which creates a safe harbor for compensation plans based on bona fide seniority systems. Moreover, the Court also ruled that the recently passed Ledbetter Fair Pay Act similarly did not render discriminatory pension credits and pension benefits calculated before the passage of the PDA.

According to the Court’s opinion, AT&T—like many employers -- for many years awarded fewer pension credits to women for pregnancy/maternity leave than it did for other types of medical leave. In the 1960’s and early 1970’s, employees on disability leave received full pension credit, but employees on personal leave or pregnancy leave only received up to 30 days of pension credit. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Gilbert v. General Electric that pension plans which provided less credit for pregnancy leave than other disability leaves did not constitute unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. The following year, Congress amended Title VII by enacting the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to provide that it constituted sex discrimination to treat pregnancy less favorably than other medical conditions. AT&T immediately amended its pension plans so that all maternity leaves following the PDA’s passage would receive the same pension credits as other disability leaves. However, AT&T did not go back and retroactively award pension credits to current female employees who had previously taken maternity leave under the former pension plan and did not increase the pension benefits of retired female employees who had taken maternity leave under the former pension plan prior to the passage of the PDA.

Lawsuits and EEOC charges ensued against AT&T and the “baby bell companies.” The Courts of Appeal split on this issue (with the Seventh and Sixth Circuits ruling in favor of the employers). In the present case, four women – three retirees and a current employee – filed EEOC Charges because they were disadvantaged by two to six months in the calculation of their pension benefits on account of maternity leaves which they took prior to the passage of the PDA. The EEOC found probable cause of discrimination and issued right-to-sue letters. They filed suit in California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that AT&T’s refusal to issue retroactive pension credits violated Title VII and the PDA. The Supreme Court reversed.

The Court found that the pension plan was part of a bona fide seniority system which AT&T had utilized since approximately 1914. “As we have said, ‘[a] ‘seniority system’ is a scheme that, alone or in tandem with non-‘seniority’ criteria, allots to employees ever improving employment rights and benefits as their relative lengths of pertinent employment increase.” California Brewers Assn. v. Bryant, 444 U. S. 598, 605–06 (1980).” Even though it would violate the PDA to have such a seniority system today, “a seniority system does not necessarily violate the statute when it gives current effect to such rules that operated before the PDA. “[S]eniority systems are afforded special treatment under Title VII[‘s]” § 703(h):

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . . system . . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin . . . .” 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(h).

“Benefit differentials produced by a bona fide seniority based pension plan are permitted unless they are “the result of an intention to discriminate.” TWA v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 81 (1977). The Court declined to treat pregnancy discrimination differently from race, age or national origin discrimination under § 703(h). The Court noted that it had reached a similar decision regarding the arguably racist calculation of pension benefits before the passage of Title VII in Teamsters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324 (1977). Moreover, because Gilbert had already ruled that such pension plans did not violate Title VII, the Court declined to now reverse that decision and find that the pre-PDA pension plan was discriminatory on its face. (This holding effectively also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the pension plan also violated the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.). In addition, because there was nothing in the PDA to indicate that Congress intended a retroactive application of the Act and the general rule is that legislation applies only prospectively, the Court declined to give retroactive affect to the PDA to cover pension calculations made before the passage of the Act. Finally, the Court concluded that it would read § 703(h) out of Title VII to destroy the safe harbor anytime new legislation was enacted.

Justice Ginsburg dissented on the grounds that, among other things, Gilbert had been wrongly decided (based on prior Court of Appeals decisions and EEOC guidelines).

Insomniacs may read the full Supreme Court opinion at http://

Pittsburgh Hospital Agrees to Pay $100,000 to Settle ADA Lawsuit Brought by EEOC.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that “a Pittsburgh hospital has agreed to pay $100,000 and furnish other equitable relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by” the EEOC which “had charged the hospital with firing an employee because she had cancer.” The lawsuit suit was filed at Civil Action No. 08-1358, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, the plaintiff “needed a reasonable accommodation for her disability after she had surgery for cancer and underwent chemotherapy. [She] was a longstanding employee of LifeCare Hospitals of Pittsburgh or its predecessor and had a good performance record.”

According to the EEOC’s allegations, the defendant employer “initially provided a reasonable accommodation to” the plaintiff. However, “in about August 2007 the regional director of finance suddenly stopped accommodating [her] disability and demanded that she return to work full-time with no restrictions.” After she “returned to work full-time, the supervisor discriminated against her because of her disability, including substantially increasing her workload, removing her full-time staff assistant, and subjecting her to unwarranted work scrutiny.” Ultimately, “the hospital fired [the plaintiff] because of her disability.”

The EEOC announced that “the consent decree resolving the lawsuit prohibits the hospital from engaging in disability discrimination and retaliation. As part of the settlement, the hospital will also train all employees regarding the ADA’s prohibitions against disability discrimination. LifeCare did not admit liability in the consent decree, which is pending judicial approval. . . . During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charges rose to 19,453 -- an increase of 10 percent from the prior fiscal year and the highest number of disability bias charges filed with the EEOC in 14 years.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-12-09.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: Not Religious Discrimination to Require Religious Objector to Union Dues to Pay Full Dues to Charity Instead of Merely Agency Fee.

Today, a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a former union member against the UAW. Reed v. UAW, No. 07-2505 (6th Cir. 5/7/09). According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff “claims that UAW, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his religious objection to financially supporting the union.” The Court affirmed dismissal of this claims on the grounds that the plaintiff could not show an actionable employment action merely from the fact that religious objectors were required to make a charitable donation in any amount of the full union membership dues instead of the lesser amount of the agency fee charged to non-union members (which was 22% less than regular union member dues).

According to the Court’s opinion, the UAW constitution, “grants both members and non-member agency fee payers ‘the right to object to the expenditure of a portion of his/her dues money for activities or causes primarily political in nature’ and to receive a rebate for that portion. UAW and AM General also are parties to a letter agreement that allows any employee with a bona fide religious objection to joining or supporting a labor union to satisfy his union security obligation by making a payment equal to full membership dues to one of three charities mutually designated by UAW and AM General.” After the plaintiff resigned his union members based on religious objections (which was supported by a letter from his pastor), the union began deducting the agency fee from his pay (which was less than the amount of full union dues he had been paying). When the plaintiff objected to paying even the agency fee, the union responded that it would refund the agency fees deducted from this paycheck if he paid an amount equal to the amount of full union dues to an approved charity. The plaintiff did so and then filed a Charge and lawsuit objecting to being required to pay to the charity an amount equal to full union dues instead of just the lesser amount of the agency fee charged to non-members. The plaintiff claimed that being required to pay the charity an amount equal to the regular union dues instead of the lesser agency fee amount was not a reasonable accommodation of his religion.

The majority agreed with affirming the dismissal of the claim, but for different reasons. In the lead opinion, the judge found that there was not a material adverse employment action in that the plaintiff was not disciplined or discharged. The judge did not believe that the plaintiff could prove a prima facie case by complaining about a minor difference in pay deductions (i.e., the 22% difference between the agency fee charge non-members and the amount of union dues charged to full members and to religious objectors). The concurring opinion, on the other hand, found that the union’s action was a sufficient accommodation of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs.

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0166p-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.

DOL Issues FMLA Opinion Letter Formally Killing 1995 Two-Day Rule for Employees to Give Notice of Need for FMLA Leave.

Yesterday, in Letter Opinion FMLA2009-1-A (1/6/09), the Department of Labor published on its website an Administrator Letter Opinion which formally withdrew Letter Opinion FMLA-101 from January 1999 which barred employer attendance policies that required employees taking intermittent FMLA leave to report within one hour after the start of their shift. The requesting employer complained that the 1999 Letter Opinion prevented employers from “applying internal call-in policies, disciplining employees under the no call/no show policies or disciplining employees who call in late, as long as the employees provide notice within two business days that the leave FMLA-qualifying, regardless of whether they could have practicably provided notice sooner.”

The FMLA itself requires employees to provide “such notice as is practicable” when the need for leave is not foreseeable 30 days in advance. However, the 1995 regulations essentially interpreted “as soon as practicable” to mean within two business days. This interpretation was formalized in the 1999 Letter Opinion. The DOL noted that the FMLA regulations were substantially revised in November 2008 and became final on January 16, 2009 because the “one to two business days time frame set forth in the 1995 regulations had been misinterpreted as permitting employees to business days from learning of their need for leave to provide notice to their employers regardless of whether it would have been practicable to provide notice more quickly.” In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the DOL explained the proposed rule change because it “expected that it will be practicable for the employee to provide notice of the need for leave either the same day (if the employee becomes aware of the need for leaving during work hours) or the next business day (if the employee becomes aware of the need for leave after work hours.)” Thus, “absent unusual circumstances, employees may be required to follow established call-in procedures (except one that imposes amore stringent timing requirement than the regulations provide) and failure to properly notify employers of absences may cause a delay or denial of FMLA protection.”

In particular, “[i]t generally should be practicable for the employee to provide notice of leave that is unforeseeable within the time prescribed by the employer’s usual and customary notice requirements applicable to such leave. . . . In both situations, employees must comply with their employers’ usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave, absent unusual circumstances.”

The Department recognizes that call-in procedures are routinely enforced in the workplace and are critical to an employer’s ability to ensure appropriate staffing levels. Such procedures frequently specify both when and to whom an employee is required to report an absence. The Department believes that employers should be able to enforce non-discriminatory call-in procedures, except where an employer’s call-in procedures are more stringent than the timing for FMLA notice . . . . In that situation, the employer may not enforce the more stringent timing requirement of its internal policy. Additionally, where unusual circumstances prevent an employee seeking FMLA-protected leave from complying with the procedures, the employee will be entitled to FMLA-protected leave so long as the employee complies with the policy as soon as he or she can practicably do so.

Therefore, “where an employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting leave are consistent with what is practicable given the particular circumstances of the employee’s need for leave, the employer’s notice requirements can be enforced. . . . Thus, . . . [if] an employer policy require[es] employees to call in one hour prior to their shift to report absences and an employee who is absent on Tuesday and Wednesday, but does not call in on either day and instead provides notice of his need for FMLA leave when he returns to work on Thursday, it is our opinion that unless unusual circumstances prevented the employee from providing notice consistent with the employer’s policy, the employer may deny FMLA leave for the absence. “

Insomniacs can read the full opinion letter at http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/opinion/FMLA/2009/2009_01_06_1A_FMLA.htm.

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.

USCIS Again Delays Mandatory E-Verify Implementation For Federal Contractors Until June 30, 2009

As summarized here on December 9, 2008, January 12, 2009 and February 3, 2009, the federal government published its final regulation in November which will require many federal contractors and subcontractors to begin using the e-verify program to confirm the employment eligibility of many existing and newly-hired employees as federal service and construction contracts and solicitations are issued or amended. However, although the implementation date was initially scheduled to be January 15, 2009 and was pushed back to February 20, 2009 and then to May 20, last week it was once against postponed – this time until June 30, 2009. In other words, federal agencies have been directed to postpone the insertion of a new clause into procurement contracts and solicitations requiring contractors and subcontractors to enroll and utilize the e-verify program. This regulation implements Executive Order 12989 which was amended in June 2008.

The USCIC website now provides, among other things, that “This new rule requires federal contractors to agree, through language inserted into their federal contracts, to use E-Verify to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons hired during a contract term, and to confirm the employment eligibility of federal contractors’ current employees who perform contract services for the federal government within the United States. Federal contracts awarded and solicitations issued after May 21, 2009 will include a clause committing government contractors to use E-Verify. The same clause will also be required in subcontracts over $3,000 for services or construction. Contracts exempt from this rule include those that are for less than $100,000 and those that are for commercially available off-the-shelf items. Companies awarded a contract with the federal government will be required to enroll in E-Verify within 30 days of the contract award date. They will also need to begin using the E-Verify system to confirm that all of their new hires and their employees directly working on federal contracts are authorized to legally work in the United States.”

Additional details about the e-verify requirements and exemptions are included in the December 9 posting [Many Federal Contractors and Subcontractors Required to Use E-verify Program After January 15, 2009. ]

Contractors remain free to utilize the e-verify system before the June 30 implementation date.

Insomniacs can read the UCSIS announcement at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD&vgnextchannel=534bbd181e09d110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCRD