Ricci v. DeStefano: Supreme Court rules on discriminatory Hobson’s choice

Perhaps no decision has been more eagerly anticipated this year by employment lawyers than the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano. If you are unfamiliar with the case, it concerns a municipality refusing to certify the results of a civil service exam after it concluded that it was racially biased. Specifically, the black test-takers pass rate was half that of white test-takers. The white applicants who scored highest on the exam sued for race discrimination. Both the trial and appellate court ruled for the city, finding that the white applicants did not have a Title VII claim because the city was trying to comply with its Title VII obligations to its black applicants. This case asks a fundamental question – do our anti-discrimination laws guarantee preferential treatment for the historically underrepresented, or do they balance equal treatment for all?

In Ricci v. DeStefano [PDF], the Supreme Court held the following:

1. The city’s action in disregarding the test results to the detriment of the white firefighters that received the highest scores violated Title VII.

2. Avoiding disparate-impact liability does not excuse what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination, unless the employer has a strong-basis-in-evidence that the employer will be liable under Title VII by accepting the challenged results.

3. To have a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results, the city would have had to prove that the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or that it had refused to adopt an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative.

The following quote from the Ricci decision sums up the Court’s view of the Hobson’s choice presented to employers between a policy or practice that has a disparate impact one versus an intentional decision to the discriminatory detriment of another:

Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability.

I was going to write something deep about the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t decisions that employers face, but I can’t do it any better than Walter Olson (the proprietor of the awesome Overlawyered blog and Point of Law forum) did on Forbes.com:

It's a question HR managers and company lawyers are used to facing every day. Would you rather field the legal claims that result from targeted layoffs, or the ones that result from sacking people regardless of performance? Would you rather face a defamation lawsuit for mentioning the reasons for a problem employee's departure, or a failure-to-warn lawsuit for not mentioning them? Will your policy on religious proselytizing in the workplace get you sued by the believers, or by the atheists? But the courts have no general theory of sued-if-you-do, sued-if-you-don't scenarios, and often they seem unwilling to give the matter much thought at all. Monday, for a change, these issues took center stage…. Monday's crucial ruling is on the question: how serious does the prospect of litigation over an employment practice have to be before an employer is allowed to lean over in the opposite (discriminatory) direction to avoid liability?

The Ricci decision does not cure this problem, it merely flips it on it’s head. The employer in Ricci chose to protect the black employees and got sued by the white employees. After Ricci, an employer will have to choose the white employees and defend a lawsuit by the black employees. It’s little solace that this lawsuit will be defensible (at least according to the Court), because employers will still have to expend the legal fees to have the likely disparate impact lawsuit dismissed.

Stayed tuned – I’ll have further thoughts on what this important decision means for employers in an upcoming post. For other commentary on Ricci, I recommend checking out the following from my blogging brethren:

• Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog: Analysis: Ricci, without the rhetoric.
• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog: Five Things Employers Can Learn from the Ricci v. DeStefano Case.
• Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters: What Ricci means for employers.
• Marcia McCormick, at the Workplace Prof Blog: Ricci Analysis Part 1.
• Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer: Supreme Court Gives Victory to New Have Firefighters.
• Marc Alifanz at World of Work: Ricci v. DeStefano -- Supreme Court Holds City Violated Title VII By Rejecting Racially Disparate Test Results.
• John Rosenberg at Discriminations: Ricci et al. Vindicated; Ricci Reversed!

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

No wonder fighting sexual harassment is an uphill battle

How are employers supposed to fight workplace harassment when employees are bombarded by images like this, an actual ad for Burger King’s new “Super Seven Incher”?

You can ask anyone who knows me – I am not a prude, not be any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s hilarious that Burger King has chosen the least subtle innuendo possible to advertise its new sandwich. But, if this what your employees see when they open the newspaper or turn on their TV, is it any wonder that they think it acceptable to forward images not that much more offensive this this one through the company email system?

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #85

Last week, Bozeman, Mont., began requiring all job applicants to provide a list of all “current personal or business websites, web pages, or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include but not limited to:  Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc,” including their user names, other login info, and even their passwords. The Delaware Employment Law Blog and the California Employment Law Report have the details. Just as quickly, World of Work reports, the city reversed course and got rid of this awful practice. for other news in the world of background checks and employee screening, I recommend the Employeescreen IQ Blog on a background check that should have been done, and the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, on the risks of doing one incorrectly.

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve written a lot about social networking (Do you know? Facebook and Twitter and blogs, oh my! What is social networking and why should you care? and Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations). Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, has his own take on the issue.
Steph Gregor, in the Columbus, Ohio, Other Paper, writes on workplace lactation rights (and quotes me).

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog has a good, basic lesson on “cloud computing.”

Jay Shepherd at Gruntled Employees, on why you shouldn’t nickel-and-dime your employees.
LaborPains notes that even the unions cannot agree that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the EFCA are a good idea.

Mike Elk at Today’s Workplace comments that he stopped drinking Yuengling beer because it is no longer a union shop (politics would never come between me and my favorite beer).

At HR Observations, Michael Haberman observes that labor unions are bad.

The FMLA Blog points out that just because an employee happens to be on FMLA leave does not mean that he or she cannot be fired.
Walter Olson’s Overlawyered reports that per a settlement, UPS will now permit the hard-of-hearing to drive certain trucks.

Mitchell Rubenstein at the Adjunct Law Prof Blog, on whether keystroke monitoring of employees’ computers violates federal law.

Another week brings us news of more new pending federal workplace laws. The Warren & Hays Employment Blog discusses the Family Friendly Workplace Act, which would allow for comp time in lieu of overtime. The Washington Labor & Employment Wire reports on another attempt at the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would add protections for actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity to Title VII.

Hector Chichoni at the Florida Employment & Immigration Blog thoroughly dissects the issues that could arise when layoffs hit employees with H-1B visas.

Ann Bares at Compensation Force tackles the issue of the lingering effect of furloughs.

Darcy Dees at Compensation Cafe opines on leveraging flexible work schedules as rewards for good employees.

WIRTW is taking next Friday off to celebrate our nation’s freedom, and will return on July 10 with a supersized two-week edition.

Workplace smartphone etiquette – smartphones versus smart use

When I started my first legal job during law school, the biggest distraction was  minesweeper on my desktop PC. Today, distractions are bigger, sleeker, and much more available. And, they have unshackled themselves from the desktop. Stop and think about the last meeting you attended when someone wasn’t fiddling with a Blackberry, iPhone, or other PDA.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Alex Williams takes up the etiquette debate of PDAs and corporate meetings:

As Web-enabled smartphones have become standard on the belts and in the totes of executives, people in meetings are increasingly caving in to temptation to check e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, even (shhh!) ESPN.com.

But a spirited debate about etiquette has broken out. Traditionalists say the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones in meetings is as gauche as ordering out for pizza. Techno-evangelists insist that to ignore real-time text messages in a need-it-yesterday world is to invite peril….

The phone use has become routine in the corporate and political worlds — and grating to many. A third of more than 5,300 workers polled in May by Yahoo HotJobs, a career research and job listings Web site, said they frequently checked e-mail in meetings. Nearly 20 percent said they had been castigated for poor manners regarding wireless devices.

Despite resistance, the etiquette debate seems to be tilting in the favor of smartphone use, many executives said. Managing directors do it. Summer associates do it. It spans gender and generation, private and public sectors.

At Gruntled Employees this morning, Jay Shepherd asks, “Does your company need a smartphone policy?” Here’s my two cents. If we are going to provide employees the technology to stay connected 24/7, and expect them to be available 24/7 because of this technology, we should trust them to be responsible with it. Technology has conditioned customers and clients to expect immediate responses to questions and problems. So, if an employee is spending some time during a meeting responding to a client, this responsiveness should be lauded, not legislated via a policy. On the other hand, if an employee is reading about the Cavs’ acquisition of Shaq, maybe the problem is with the meeting itself and not the employee.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

When is a failure to accommodate an employee’s religion actionable?

If an employee approaches your HR department and asks for an accommodation for his or her religion, you might think that your company has an automatic obligation to provide the accommodation. Reed v. United Auto Workers (6th Cir. 6/23/09) [PDF], suggests otherwise.

In Reed, a union member claimed that the UAW discriminated against him because of his religion by failing to reasonably accommodate his religious objection to financially supporting the union.

Under Title VII employers (and labor unions) have a statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship. To establish a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show: (1) that s/he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) s/he has informed the employer about the conflict; and (3) s/he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. If an employee makes this showing, the employer (or, in this case, labor union) can avoid liability by showing that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship.

Reed’s claim failed because he could not show that he was discharged or disciplined as a result of his religious belief: “Unless a plaintiff has suffered some independent harm caused by a conflict between his employment obligation and his religion, a defendant has no duty to make any kind of accommodation.”

The next time you are faced with an employee requesting a workplace accommodation for some religious belief, do not necessarily assume that the accommodation is owed. The employee’s religious belief may not be sincere, the accommodation might be unreasonable and pose an undue hardship, or, as was the case in Reed, the failure to provide the accommodation may not result in any discipline or discharge. 

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Handling a chronically ill employee

In the June 19 New York Times, Lesley Alderman provided chronically ill employees some practical information on how to protect their jobs while coping with a chronic illness. Employers also have to protect themselves from liability in the same situation. Two laws govern employees with chronic illnesses: the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is crucial for employers to understand how these two laws intersect and interact.

The FMLA allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other circumstances, an employee’s own serious health condition. A serious health condition is defined as illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that requires inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. Only those who have been employed for at least a year, and who have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in the preceding year, are covered by the FMLA.

Unlike the FMLA, the ADA covers employees on day-one of employment. The ADA also differs from the FMLA in the scope of injuries and illnesses it covers. The FMLA merely requires a serious health condition that prevents the employee from working on a temporary basis (typically at least three days). The ADA, however, requires that the employee must have a current, chronic medical condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities on an ongoing basis. The ADA does not have a leave requirement, although it does require employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities. Under the ADA, once an employer learns that an employee might need a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job, the employer must engage the employee in an interactive process to determine what that reasonable accommodation might be. An extended leave of absence, beyond the FMLA’s 12 weeks, might be reasonable accommodation, depending on the illness or injury, the nature of the job, and the employer’s needs.

The biggest mistake an employer can make is to terminate an employee automatically upon the expiration the FMLA-leave entitlement, without giving any consideration to whether that employee is covered by the ADA and whether a temporarily extended leave or other temporary job restructuring will enable that employee to remain employed.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Have you thought about these four issues before you fired that employee?

BLR’s HR Daily Advisor recently published a helpful checklist of the 10 Questions You Must Ask Before Firing (part 1 and part 2). I have synthesized the list into four key considerations:

1. Have you followed your own documents? There are several documents that inform the employment relationship – handbooks and other policy manuals, and contracts, both with individual employees and union agreements. Any well-written handbook should have a disclaimer that it is not a contract, that it is not binding on the company, and that the employee should not rely on it as such. Companies should nevertheless be careful to ensure that if it deviates from a policy, it has a good reason to do so an a history of similar deviations in similar circumstances. Union agreements have their own unique set of issues. Does the contract allow for termination? If so, are there rules or processes that must be followed? Are you acting out of an anti-union animus?

2. Have you been consistent? Consistency is paramount in any employment decision, and will go a long way to dispelling inferences of discrimination. Consistency looks at how you treated similarly-situated employees in similar circumstances. Two special circumstances merit mention. Retaliation is the single biggest employment practices risk facing employers today. If an employee has recently engaged in protected activity, triple-check to make sure the rest of your house is in order before terminating. In Ohio, pregnant employees gain special rights on their first day of employment, and have to be given their job back the expiration of maternity leave.

3. Do you have a well-documented business reason for the termination? When an employer relies on undocumented accounts of misconduct to support a termination, it is fair for a court or jury to infer that those accounts were created post-termination and question their legitimacy. So, have all performance and other problems with the employee been documented? Has the employee signed off on the record, or has it been documented that the employee refused to sign?

4. Have you been fair? This is the most important reason. Lawyers spend months, and sometimes years, preparing their case for trial. A trial lasts days, sometimes weeks. During that trial, the jury will hear from countless witnesses and see myriad documents. Every piece has been carefully laid out by the attorneys to make the most persuasive presentation possible. Jury instructions will be carefully drafted to ensure that the jury is given the correct law to apply to the case in reaching its decision, And, that jury will listen to bits and pieces and retain even less. At the end of day, no matter what the jurors are told, I believe that in most cases, the decision will come down to one fundamental question – was the employee treated fairly? If that juror, or his or her wife, child, or parent, was treated as the plaintiff was treated, would that juror believe he or she had gotten a fair shake, or was mistreated? At the end of the day, how you answer this question will most likely signal how you decision will be judged.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.