Thursday, June 7, 2018
EEOC Announces Resolution of Personality Test Challenges
Yesterday, the EEOC announced conciliation agreements with
both CVS
and Best Buy
over the use of personality tests/assessments as part of their hiring process
which allegedly had a disparate impact on applicants on the basis of their race
or national origin. The issue was
investigated between 2002 and 2010 and resulted in the filing of a Commissioner’s
Charge. Both CVS and Best Buy discontinued the
challenged practice upon receiving the Charge.
The announcement does not reflect the payment of any damages or backpay
or the hiring of any rejected applicants.
Rather, both companies agreed to implement certain best practices, to be
more mindful of minority hiring, improving training for hiring managers and to
submit regular reports to the EEOC.
Court of Appeals Finds Employee Has Right to Challenge Termination in Court to Determine Fall-Back Rights
Earlier this week, a divided Franklin County Court of
Appeals reversed the 12(B)(6) dismissal of a declaratory judgment action
seeking a determination about whether an unclassified civil service employee
had been fired for cause. Harris
v. Dept. of Veterans Servs., 2018-Ohio-2165. The employee alleged at the SPBR that he had
been fired in retaliation for making a whistleblower complaint. He then withdrew that that charge and filed a
mandamus action and declaratory judgment action seeking his fall-back right to
a classified civil service position he held four years earlier. The court’s majority refused to rule on the
mandamus claim because it was premature in that he could only seek fall-back
rights if he had been fired without cause and his termination notice notified
him that he was fired for cause.
However, the court’s majority found that the trial court had abused its
discretion in dismissing the declaratory judgment action because he was
entitled to a determination of whether or not his termination had been with or
without cause. The dissent observed that
his whistleblower claim was subject to the jurisdiction of the SPBR and, thus,
he was required to have brought such a claim before the SPBR instead of in
court.
NOTICE: This
summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal
developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular
situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information
here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should not act upon
this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything
you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Supreme Court Finds Violation of Free Exercise Clause Based on Direct Evidence and Disparate Treatment, but Does Not Define the Limits
As widely covered in the media, the
Supreme Court decided with a healthy 7-2 majority that a baker’s sincerely held
religious views were improperly censored by a local civil rights commission in
violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause when the commission
concluded that the baker had unlawfully discriminated on the basis of sexual
orientation in refusing to create and sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples on
the grounds that he did not want to endorse behavior that violated his conscience
and that gay marriage was then illegal in Colorado. Masterpiece
Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,
No. 16-111 (6-3-18). The
Court did not address whether the baker was entitled to live his life and conduct his sole proprietor business
according to his conscience, but found that he
had been discriminated against by the government agency which was so blinded by
its pursuit of justice for the same-sex couple that it forgot that the baker
has civil rights, too. The Court was sympathetic
that his refusal took place before
same sex marriage was even legal in Colorado and before the Court itself upheld
the right of same sex couples to marry. It
was also influenced by evidence that he was willing to sell other baked goods, just
not wedding cakes. The more problematic
issue was that the government absolved other bakers of religious discrimination when they refused to create and bake cakes
with homophobic or anti-gay marriage themes (with religious quotes presumably
about marriage) and that one of the government officials disparaged and equated
the baker’s sincere convictions and conscience with slavery and the holocaust. Above all things, a government must remain
neutral in matters of religion, view point and conscience, and that was
entirely missing in this case as government officials wanted to publicize their
distaste for the baker’s convictions: “[T]he delicate question of when the free
exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state
power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility
on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State
sought to reach.”
According to the Court’s opinion several
of the commissioners were openly hostile to religion and religious dissenters
(notwithstanding that several of the initial 13 colonies were initially settled
by and because of religious dissent):
At several points during its meeting,
commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be
carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious
beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business
community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe “what he wants
to believe,” but cannot act on his religious beliefs “if he decides to do
business in the state.” Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated
the same position: “[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and
he’s got an issue with the— the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he
needs to look at being able to compromise.”
Another
of the commissioners went even further:
Freedom of religion and religion has
been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it
be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list
hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify
discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric
that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”
The Court observed that the tension
between the first amendment and civil rights statutes has been and will remain
a difficult issue to resolve, not just for bakers, but for other artists and
sole proprietors. It recognized that exceptions will have to be made, but also
made clear that those exceptions cannot be too broad without violating the
rights of gay citizens:
When it comes to weddings, it can be
assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and
religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial
of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our
constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons
could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity
and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons
who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so
for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with
the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to
goods, services, and public accommodations.
There were a number of concurring
opinions. The justices did not agree about the relevance of the other bakers
who refused to create and sell cakes which they found personally offensive
according to their own conscience. Some saw
their different treatment by the civil rights commission as discriminatory,
while others did not. Justice Kagan submitted
that making a special cake that disparages gay marriage is so unique that it
cannot be compared to a “regular” wedding cake that the baker refused to sell. She distinguished it from Justice Gorsuch’s view
that the “regular” wedding cake was a special cake to celebrate a same-sex
marriage. She joined the majority
opinion not because she felt that the other bakers should not have been treated
differently, but because of the reasoning
of the state agency reflected improper hostility towards religion. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion described
it as follows:
Another indication of hostility is the
difference in treatment between Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers
who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience and prevailed
before the Commission.
The Commission had found the cake
texts to be derogatory and hateful, giving those bakers the right to legally
refuse to create and bake those cakes.
The treatment of the conscience-based
objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s
treatment of Phillips’ objection. The
Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the
requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to
the baker. Yet the Division did not
address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes
depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.
Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases
in part because each bakery was willing to sell other products, including those
depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’
willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”
App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant. The treatment of the
other cases and Phillips’ case could reasonably be interpreted as being
inconsistent as to the question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from
whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In short, the Commission’s consideration of
Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other
objections.
. . . .
. . .A principled rationale for the difference
in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own
assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics,
nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it
is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its
officials to prescribe what shall be offensive.
. . . .
The
Constitution “commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even
slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to
religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember
their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures . . . . “
. . . It hardly requires restating that
government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious
ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.
NOTICE: This
summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal
developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any
particular situation because different facts could lead to different results.
Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should
not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions
about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment
attorney.
Sixth Circuit Affirms City's Judgment But Reversed Union's Judgment in Case Alleging Discriminatory Layoffs
This week there have already been three interesting
decisions. In one, the Sixth Circuit
absolved a City of discrimination for accommodating a union demand to layoff
one group of employees over another, but pulled the union back into the
litigation for potential discrimination liability for making that demand in the
first place. Peeples
v. City of Detroit, No. 17-222
(6th Cir. 2018). The Court refused to let plaintiffs alleging race
discrimination “piggyback” on the only timely EEOC Charge which resulted in a
right-to-sue letter when that charge alleged only national origin
discrimination. It also refused to find
statements made by a city employee about the union’s purported motivation as
direct evidence. It also found no
circumstantial evidence of discrimination based only on statistics which did
not attempt to show significant deviations from non-discriminatory factors,
like seniority, and which were based on small sample size. The Court, however, found that the plaintiffs
did not need to show that the union breached its duty of fair representation in
order to sue the union under Title VII.
According to the Court’s opinion, the City of Detroit
instituted layoffs in advance of filing for bankruptcy protection. It announced the layoff list based on
city-wide seniority, but the fire department union objected on the grounds that
it should be based on department seniority and filed a grievance. The City
ultimately resolved the grievance by granting the union’s request. The
distinction resulted in the layoff of more minority officers under the union’s proposal
than the City’s plan. After four EEOC
Charges followed, the fire union relented and agreed to the City’s initial plan. The City ended up re-hiring the affected
employees 80 days later and giving them full back pay, missed overtime pay and
medical benefits. Nonetheless, even
though only one of the plaintiffs had obtained a right-to-sue letter from the
EEOC, eleven of the affected minority employees brought suit against the City
and the Union, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
The Court addressed whether all of the plaintiffs could
piggy back onto the one plaintiff’s right-to-sue letter. Sadly for the plaintiffs, they did not raise
any arguments to rebut the failure-to-exhaust remedies argument raised in the
City’s summary judgment motion and, thus, were limited in what could be argued
on appeal. The only plaintiff to obtain
a right-to-sue letter asserted only a national origin discrimination claim and
the remaining plaintiffs were asserting racial discrimination. The Court found that they were not
substantially related claims, and thus the race claims could not piggyback onto
an EEOC Charge asserting only national origin discrimination.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of direct
evidence of discrimination. One of the plaintiffs
testified in deposition that he heard a City employee state that he concluded the
union was trying to protect the “white boys” from layoff. This was not direct evidence of
discrimination because it was a city employee explaining the union’s motivation
and required an inference that the City endorsed that motive. It also likely hearsay, but the Court did not
ultimately resolve that issue.
The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ statistical evidence,
which was pretty much all that they had to show that they were selected for the
layoff on account of their race (in that they were not replaced). First, they failed to organize their
statistics in any meaningful way before the trial court. Second, the fact that the percentage of white
layoffs fell and of minority layoffs rose significantly under the union plan
did not, by itself, show impermissible bias.
To prove an inference of bias, “the statistics must show a significant
disparity and eliminate the most common nondiscriminatory explanations for the
disparity.” For instance, one could use
three standard deviations from hypothetical random chance. The plaintiffs made no effort to account for
seniority differences, for instance. The
City also argued about the sample size (only 27 people) and the other
cost-cutting efforts made, including demotions, reductions in overtime and
rescinded promotions. The plaintiffs
also made no effort to show the racial composition of the fire department
before and after the layoff. “Unless the statistics, standing alone or in
comparison, are sufficient to lead the mind naturally to the conclusion sought,
they have no probative value; they do not move the proof one way or another.”
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s damage claim in that
they had already received full back pay with the resolution of their grievances.
The plaintiffs failed to introduce any evidence disputing that they had already
received full back pay. The union
pointed out that they never raised breach of settlement agreement claims based
on the resolution of their grievances when they were reinstated. Accordingly, while they might have some
compensatory and punitive damages available under Title VII, their claims for
backpay were rejected by the trial and appellate courts.
Finally, the Court rejected the union’s argument that Title
VII claims were subject to the same burden of proof as fair representation
claims under labor-relations laws, meaning that the plaintiffs need not show
that the union breached its duty of fair representation before it could sue
them for discrimination under Title VII. Because the union had prevailed on
that issue before the trial court, the Sixth Circuit reversed the union’s summary
judgment.
NOTICE: This
summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal
developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any
particular situation because different facts could lead to different results.
Information here can be changed or amended without notice. Readers should
not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions
about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Court Denies Unemployment When Employee Failed to Comply With Employer's Medical Recertification Request
This week, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of unemployment
compensation to a former police officer who had been told that he could not
return to work without a complete medical release containing no medical
restrictions. Adams
v. Dept. of Job & Family Servs.,
2018-Ohio-2045. Because the claimant had been given the
opportunity to use the employer’s ADA policy to seek an extension of his
medical leave and had unreasonably failed to provide an updated medical
certification upon request, his unemployment was found to be voluntary, and
thus, not compensable. It did not matter
that the employee’s physician had previously informed his employer that he
could not return to work without medical restrictions for at least another
month. It also did not help his cause
that he failed to appear at an internal disciplinary hearing to determine
whether he was absent without leave or insubordinate to explain his position. On the contrary, he had already applied for
unemployment compensation before the hearing had even been held to determine
his fate and a month before his employment was formally terminated. Because he did not take reasonable steps to
preserve his employment, his unemployment was determined to be voluntary and he
was denied unemployment.
According to the Court’s opinion, the claimant had been on
FMLA leave following an off-duty injury to his knee in June 2015. He exhausted his FMLA, sick and vacation
leave and had been allowed to work restricted duty until May 2016. On July 8, 2016, he was directed to update
his medical certification by July 12 or he would be considered absent without
leave and/or insubordinate, etc. He was
also informed that he needed a release without medical restrictions, but was
also directed to the ADA policy in case he wanted to request an
accommodation. Believing that his
former medical certification (releasing him to return to work in August) was
sufficient, the claimant did not comply and applied for unemployment
compensation on July 21. He was declared
awol and a hearing was held on August 6, but he did not attend. Without any communication from him (other
than his unemployment compensation application), he was discharged on August
26. Although his initial application
was approved, the hearing officer reversed because the claimant had been given
the opportunity to return to work (with an unrestricted medical release) or to
seek an extension of his medical leave of absence (through the ADA
policy). By refusing to comply with the
employer’s reasonable request for an updated medical certification, the
claimant voluntarily chose to be unemployment through no fault of the employer.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of
recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not
apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can be changed or amended without
notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If
you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or
retain an employment attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)