Mom cannot sue employer for discrimination against her son, court says

Brittany Tovar claimed that her employer, Essentia Health, discriminated against her when her employer-sponsored medical insurance denied her son gender reassignment services and surgery.

In Tovar v. Essentia Health (D. Minn. 5/11/16), the court had little issue dismissing Tovar’s claims because the alleged target of the discrimination, her son, was not an employee protected by Title VII:

Let’s not forget about damages when litigating our cases

When employers are sued, they do not put enough thought into damages. The typical response is, “We didn’t discriminate; we aren't liable.” But, the reality is, unless you win a case on summary judgment (sadly, an unlikely result), you need to think about what a case is potentially worth and how much a plaintiff can potentially cover. For starters, it will drive settlement discussions. Moreover, and more importantly, if a case does not settle, you will want to whittle that number down as low as possible to limit the potential exposure at (gasp) trial.

The EEOC says, “Preventing Discrimination is Good Business”

Are you a small-business owner? Do you have problems understanding your obligations under the federal employment-discrimination laws? Then the EEOC is here for you.

Last week, the agency published a one-page face sheet, entitled, “Preventing Discrimination is Good Business” (available in English and 29 other languages, such as Amharic, Marshallese, or Tagalog … really).

Now is the time to restore balance to Ohio’s employment discrimination law: Endorsing the Employment Law Uniformity Act

For lack of more artful description, Ohio’s employment discrimination law is a mess. It exposes employers to claims for up to six years, renders managers and supervisors personally liable for discrimination, contains no less than four different ways for employees to file age discrimination claims (each with different remedies and filing deadlines), and omits any filing prerequisites with the state civil rights agency.

Monday, State Senator Bill Seitz introduced Senate Bill 268 [pdf], the Employment Law Uniformity Act. It is a business-friendly attempt at comprehensive reform of Ohio’s employment discrimination statute.

EEOC proposed significant pay equality changes to EEO-1

If your company has 100 or more employees, you should be very familiar with the federal government’s EEO-1 survey. The EEOC requires that you annually complete and file this form, which requests demographic on your employees, broken down by protected classes and job categories.

Last Friday, the White House made a game changing announcement about the information it proposes you submit in your EEO-1 filings.

7th Circuit delivers employers an early Christmas gift in EEOC severance agreement case

In EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the EEOC challenged what I have previously described as several garden-variety, boilerplate provisions in a severance agreement. I’ve also previously predicted that a win for the EEOC in this case would be ruinous for employers.

Late last week, the 7th Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court, which had dismissed the EEOC’s lawsuit based on its failure to conciliate with CVS prior to filing suit.

And, the 7th Circuit agreed, affirming the case on those grounds. But, the 7th Circuit also went further, and offered hope to employers this federal courts will not stand for the folly the EEOC is trying to put forth by filing this type of case.

The cost to defend a discrimination lawsuit (and can you do anything about it)

Two and a half years ago I asked, How much does it cost to defend an employment lawsuit? My answer:

The reality is that defending a discrimination or other employment lawsuit is expensive. Defending a case through discovery and a ruling on a motion for summary judgment can cost an employer between $75,000 and $125,000.

Oh, how I love to be right.

More on marijuana and off-duty conduct laws

The Browns still can’t beat the Broncos, and, it appears that Ohio’s proposed off-duty conduct law is a whole lot worse for employers than Colorado’s similar (but very different) statute.

I received an email from a long-standing reader, asking if I could reconcile my opinion that Ohio’s proposed off-duty conduct law would prohibit an Ohio employer from terminating an employee for off-duty marijuana use if Issue 3 [pdf] passes, with the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Coates v Dish Network [pdf], which held that Colorado’s off-duty conduct law did not prohibit such a termination despite that state’s legalization of pot.

It all comes down to statutory language.

Ohio’s attempt at an off-duty conduct law creates many more problems than it solves

It has become increasingly difficult to separate our private lives from our professional lives. Technology bleeds into every nook and cranny of our existence, and allows the workplace to stretch beyond the traditional 9-to-5 into a 24/7 relationship. Partly for this reason, 29 states have what are known as off-duty conduct laws — laws that protect employees’ jobs from adverse actions based on their exercise of lawful conduct outside of the workplace. Think smoking, for example. In these 29 states, it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee who smokes away from work. The employer can still prohibit smoking at the workplace, but when the employee is on his or her own private time, the conduct is off limits to the employer.

Ohio is not one of these 29 states. Senate Bill 180, however, is looking to change that.

Don’t forget to check social networks during your workplace investigations

Cleveland.com reports that a former bi-racial employee has sued a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant for race and disability discrimination:

A discrimination lawsuit contends that two employees of a Steak ‘n Shake restaurant in Aurora used racial slurs, including n-----, to refer to a black co-worker.

Brandon Waters’ suit also accuses the Indiana-based restaurant chain of failing to provide a harassment-free work environment, resulting in his firing in 2011 for being too afraid to show up for work….

Waters is biracial, and he was born with a viral infection that affects his motor and speech skills. His lawsuit names the restaurant chain, Timothy Schoeffler, a former co-worker, and Nick Karl, a former manager at the restaurant.

According to the complaint, Waters was called racial slurs at the store and on Twitter, and Karl and Schoeffler referred to him by the nickname “Radio,” a reference to the 2003 film in which Cuba Gooding Jr. plays a mentally disabled student. Karl is also accused of creating a “Radio” name tag that Waters refused to wear. 

Schoeffler also dumped a milkshake on Waters’ head in front of Karl, who laughed, the lawsuit states. The two then discussed the incident on Twitter, the lawsuit says.

Screen shots of a collection of tweets between the two men is attached to the lawsuit, and includes references to “Radio” and messages such as “the white way is the right way.”

Screen shots? Here you go:

 

Two thoughts to leave you with:

1. Yes, employees are still ignorant enough about social media to engage in very public online conversation about the (alleged) systematic harassment of a co-worker. If you are not checking Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and other social networks as part of your internal workplace investigations, there is a good chance you are missing key evidence, and maybe even the smoking gun.

2. The restaurant fired the accused employees in response to the plaintiff’s complaint to management about the alleged harassment. The plaintiff, however, just stopped going to work after their termination, claiming that he felt “unsafe as other employees and managers either tolerated or participated in the harassment.” If this employer had an anti-harassment policy, trained all of its employees about the policy, conducted a prompt investigation after the internal complaint, and took prompt remedial action after the complaint, I think that this plaintiff is going to have a difficult time establishing his claim against the employer.

Are you up on your federal recordkeeping requirements?

The EEOC announced that is has sued a nationwide provider of janitorial and facilities management services for an alleged failure to maintain records or other information that will disclose the impact of its employee selection procedures on equal employment opportunities.

What is the EEOC talking about? According to certain federal regulations, an employer must maintain, and have available for inspection, records or other information that disclose the impact which the employer's tests and other selection procedures have upon sex, African-Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Caucasians.

According to EEOC Regional Attorney Debra Lawrence, "Federal record-keeping requirements ensure that certain employers make and keep records that disclose the impact of their selection procedures. EEOC's enforcement of the record-keeping requirements is important to the agency's commitment to eliminating discriminatory barriers in the workplace."

So, if you use selection criteria or tests for hiring (criminal records, credit records, etc.), you must maintain those records for all applicants.

Tomorrow, I'll share some thoughts on the other records you should be keeping relating to your employees, and for how long you should be keeping them.

Beware the email chain of fools

A software engineer rejected for a job by GoDaddy is suing the company for discrimination. Why does he believe that the company discriminated against him? According to USA Today, he read it in the email chain included in his otherwise vanilla rejection email.

The e-mail…, which appears to be sent from a group titled the “GoDaddy Recruiting Team,” begins with a tame form letter, explaining that Connolly had not been selected for a job as a mobile IOS developer. But the note he said he saw below it in the e-mail chain packed an unusual punch.

It read, “about keith he’s great for the job in skills but he looks worse for wear do we really want an obeese (sic) christian? is that what our new image requires of us.”

Like many before it, GoDaddy says that either it was hacked or the email was fabricated. Some computer forensics will sort out the truth of that defense. If it turns out that the email is legit, GoDaddy might want to rethink its “we are not offering any kind of settlement or an apology” position.

Do I really need to tell you not to ever put something like “do we really want an obese Christian” in an email. Some things are better left unsaid, or, more to the point, un-typed. And, for god’s sake, please read those emails (all of them) before you click send. It makes my job a whole lot easier defending you without that smoking gun. 

And, before my employee-advocate readers get all over my case for defending one’s right to discriminate merely by keeping silent, yes, in an ideal world no one would think this way. But, my job is to defend the companies that have the misfortune of employing those that do. If GoDaddy is wrong, and one of its recruiters did send that email, then it should stand by its pronouncement that it is “proud to be an Equal Opportunity Employer” and settle, period.

Supreme Court to consider time limits for constructive discharge claims

Yesterday, the Supreme Court finished its Spring 2015 term with oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex-marriage case. Earlier in the week, it added another case to its docket for its 2015 – 2016 term, agreeing to hear Green v. Donahoe, which asks the following question:

Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held?

While this case is not as sexy as some other employment issues recently before the Court, it is nevertheless important. Under the federal employment discrimination statutes, an employee only has 300 days to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which serves as the prerequisite to the filing of a later lawsuit in federal court. If the Supreme Court holds that the filing period begins to run at the employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act, then an employee who later resigns and claims constructive discharge will have a shorter window within which to file an administrative charge after the resignation.

Stay tuned, as this case will be heard towards the end of this year or early next year.

EEOC seeks a quarter-billion dollars from NYC

Earlier this month, the EEOC’s New York District Office issued a Determination [pdf] finding probable cause to believe that New York City violated Title VII and the Equal Pay Act through a “pattern of wage suppression and subjective promotion based on … sex, race, and national origin.” The conciliation agreement the agency proposed seeks compensation in excess of more than $246 million. That eye-popping number should catch the attention of every employer.

While settlement proposals are merely numbers on a piece of paper, and no one expects NYC to roll over and play dead, this story holds an important lesson for employers. The EEOC, which is an agency of limited financial resources, is going to go after that which will provide the most bang for its buck. If you are a large employer, you have a large target on your back, and the EEOC is taking aim. Yet, even small employers should show concern, because while the size of the target is might be proportionate to the size of the employer, even a small hit can prove devastating for a small employer. If you are not currently under investigation (and most of your aren’t), consider yourself as living on borrowed time. Take advantage of it. Use this time to audit all of your HR and employer practices (hiring, firing, pay, policies, etc.) to ensure compliance with all employment laws, including Title VII. It might sound trite, but knowledge really is power. Better to find out that you are out of compliance before an agency knocks on your door than after.

Direct evidence must … wait for it … exist to matter in a discrimination case

You have admire the creativity of attorneys. In Butler v. The Lubrizol Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 3/31/15) [pdf], the plaintiff argued that direct evidence of race discrimination existed because, when confronted with a complaint of discrimination, the plaintiff’s supervisor did not deny it. The appellate court, in affirming the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, disagreed:

Specifically, appellant states the trial court erred by declining “to hold that a direct evidence method of proof can be made in a discrimination case based on an ‘admission by omission’….” His argument is that although Decker never admitted to making decisions based on race, he also never denied it, and that the lack of a denial can be used as direct evidence that the accusations are in fact true….

The trial court stated that appellant’s evidence of Decker’s silence “would require the finder of fact to infer solely from Decker’s failure to directly address the accusation of race discrimination that the accusation is true.” … We agree….

Discrimination cases are laced with emotion. The plaintiff, in essence, is accusing the employer and its management of bigotry of one kind or another. When confronted with this accusation, it’s okay for a manager or supervisor to show some humanity by denying it, vehemently. Rest assured, however, that silence in the face of these allegations should not hang the employer with the noose of direct evidence of discrimination.

When loose lips sink defense ships

“So, what is is, your job or your daughter?” That one question cost an employer summary judgment in its employee’s associational disability discrimination case, in Manon v. 878 Education, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 3/4/15) [pdf].

The employee in question, a school receptionist, had attendance issues relative to her care for her infant with Reactive Airway Disease. During her 132 days of work, she arrived late 27 times, left early 54 times, and was absent another 17 times, batting .258—passable for a second baseman, but well below the employment Mendoza Line. Nevertheless, with the exception of one verbal tardiness warning, her personnel file was devoid of any documentation of attendance issues.

When Manon returned to work following a two-day absence to care for her daughter, who had been hospitalized with breathing issues, her supervisor told her that he was letting her go. The reason? “How can you guarantee me that two weeks from now your daughter is not going to be sick again? …So, what is it, your job or your daughter?”

Based on that statement, the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment, leaving the employer two options to resolve the case—a settlement or a risky jury trial.

It goes without saying that discrimination is wrong. Maybe the lesson here is that if you are ignorant enough to fire someone because of their caregiving needs at home, maybe it is asking too much to expect you to know enough not to express that intent out loud.

Why your control employees must care about employment laws

Last week I was asked if managers and supervisors have any liability for their own acts of discrimination or other unlawful activities. Like most things in the law, the answer is, “It depends” on the law about which you are concerned.

If it’s wage and hour advice, for example, then the Fair Labor Standards Act provides for individual liability for those who exercise significant control over the company’s operations. Some courts apply the same rationale to violations of the FMLA, although individual liability under that statute is far from a settled issue. The 3rd, 5th, and 8th Circuits have all found that there can be individual liability for FMLA violations, while the 6th (which covers Ohio) and 11th Circuits have gone the other way.

There are also potential common law claims under states law (e.g., intentional infliction of emotional distress) that, while hard to establish, create yet another avenue of individual liability. 

If it’s discrimination liability, there is no issue for the individuals under since Title VII and the other federal employment discrimination laws, none of which provide for any individual liability. 

Here is the part, however, to which Ohio employers must pay attention. Under Ohio’s employment discrimination statute, managers and supervisors can be held individually liable for their own acts of discrimination. So, an employee can not only sue your company, but also the individual who made the termination decision, the HR manager who dropped the harassment-investigation ball, or the supervisor who failed to engage the disabled employee in the interactive process. 

I’ve long argued that Ohio needs to change its employment discrimination statute to eliminate individual liability and bring our state law in line which its federal counterpart and the laws of nearly every other state. Yet, as long as this is the law of our state, these liabilities need to be central part of your company’s EEO and anti-harassment training, so that your managers and supervisors understand their own personal risk if they don’t understand their EEO obligations.

“Buyer’s regret” as an adverse employment action

Nearly a year ago, in Deleon v. City of Kalamazoo, the 6th Circuit decided that an employee could claim discrimination when he was “involuntarily” transferred into a position for which he had earlier voluntarily applied. 

At the time, I thought it was one of the worst decisions I had ever read.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decline to review the Deleon case. Typically, these denials are unceremonious affairs, with nary a word other than “denied” pronounced. Justice Alito, however, apparently agreeing with my assessment of the 6th Circuit’s decision, took the rare occasion to draft a dissent to the denial (pdf here). This is what he wrote:

An old maxim warns: Be careful what you wish for; you might receive it. In the Sixth Circuit, however, employees need not be careful what they ask for because, if their request is granted and they encounter buyer’s regret, they can sue.

No termination is perfectly insured against a lawsuit. Some are more high risk than others (and those should be accompanied by an offer a severance package in exchange for a release of claims). Even the easiest decisions, however, carry some amount of risk. On any given day, any judge or jury could agree with the employee and decide against you. You job as an employer is to balance the risk of a lawsuit against the risk of keeping an employee employed and make a reasoned, informed decision about whether to retain, fire, or fire with a severance offer. And, please, don’t have buyer’s regret.

[Hat tip: Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space] 

Is “wife swapping” a protected class?

Although we are only 8 days into 2015, Lowering the Bar brings us what might be the lawsuit of the year:

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are “lifelong friends” and in the course of socializing, each of them fell in love with the other’s wife and the wives felt similarly.… The new living arrangements have been established; divorces are planned but have not yet been obtained. 

Although everyone involved is said to be perfectly happy with the situation, the plaintiffs allege that their employers were not, and “placed them both on unpaid administrative leave due to their co-habitation with a woman who is not their wife.” … Plaintiffs also allege they were told that if and when they returned to work, they would be demoted, and would have to “cease all contact” with the former co-habitors until such time as they obtained divorces.

The lawsuit—Coker v. Whittington [pdf]—is a constitutional civil rights action alleging that the discrimination is based on religion and violates the employees’ right to privacy and freedom of association.

Regardless of the legality of the termination (and I'm not convinced this employer did anything illegal), this lawsuit illustrates the pitfalls that face an employer that imposes its moral worldview on employees. An employer has no business firing employees because it disagrees with how they choose to live their private lives. Assuming that their private lives do not affect their job performance, it should not impact their employability. Next time you want to take a stand against an employee for how he or she chooses to live his or life outside of work, think again.

6th Circuit rules in favor of nonprofit in discrimination claim brought by volunteers

In Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire Dep’t, the 6th Circuit held that a “volunteer” can qualify as an employee covered by Title VII under certain limited circumstances. In making that determination, a court must examine not only whether the volunteer is paid, but also the degree of control exercised by the employer over the manner and means by which the work is accomplished.

Last week, in Sister Michael Marie, et al. v. American Red Cross [pdf], the same court applied that test to uphold the dismissal of the Title VII religious discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims filed by two nuns against the organization for which they had volunteered. In concluding that the two plaintiff-nuns were bona fide volunteers, and not employees, the court heavily relied on the lack of compensation paid by the Red Cross, coupled with its inability to control their performance via termination of employment or threat thereof.

An employer’s ability to terminate a non-compliant employee, which is perhaps an employer’s greatest source of control, is meaningful because the employee stands to lose not only her job, but also the source of income upon which she depends…. Though we make no attempt to resurrect the economic realities test from the grave, its  central teaching remains instructive…. The economic reality is that when volunteers work without traditional forms of remuneration like salary and benefits, employers are generally without leverage to control that volunteer’s performance.

While you might think it’s cold to conclude that two nuns could not pursue discrimination claims, this case makes a broader policy statement in favor of nonprofit organizations. The lifeblood of nonprofits is their volunteer base. Without the aid of volunteers, nonprofit organizations, which operate on limited budgets and scant resources, would not survive. If volunteers could easily sue these organizations for discrimination or other employment-related claims, nonprofits would be much more reluctant to use the services of volunteers to staff their needs, thus making it much more difficult for them  to carry out their missions and provide their essential services.

By relying heavily on the lack of payment to show lack of control, the 6th Circuit drew a line that will be difficult for most bona fide volunteers to cross to demonstrate employment status. And while no organization should discriminate against anyone providing services to it, this case decides that the public good done by nonprofit organizations outweighs the public policy against employment discrimination.