NLRB Enhances Its View of Property Rights 2019-09-06T17:13:53-06:00

Posted on September 6, 2019

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has settled a long-brewing controversy over what constitutes “discrimination” with respect to non-employee access to employer property. Twenty years ago, the Board held in Sandusky Mall, 329 NLRB 618 (1999), that an employer discriminates against non-employee union representatives if it bars them from its property while permitting access to charitable and civic organizations.

The Sandusky decision was widely criticized in the United States Courts of Appeals. The decision also put employers in the unenviable position of weighing the legal risk of permitting the Girls Scouts and Salvation Army on their property. Today, the NLRB finally overruled Sandusky and adopted a definition of discrimination that accords with the prevailing view in the federal courts.

Now the NLRB will only find that an employer has discriminated in its denial of access to union representatives if it permits access to other organizations for similar types of activities. The Board no longer considers charitable, civic, and commercial activities to be similar to nonemployee union organizational activities. In applying its new rule to the case at hand, the NLRB found that Kroger did NOT discriminate when it barred non-employees urging a boycott of Kroger while permitting various charitable and civic entities on its property. In dissent, Member McFerran complained that the majority is issuing a series of cases making “it increasingly easy” for employers to exclude union organizers from property “open to the public”.

Kroger Mid-Atlantic, 368 NLRB No. 64 (September 6, 2019).

Landmine in the Eleventh Circuit 2018-09-25T16:07:07-06:00

Posted on September 25, 2018

By Joe Hunt

When Kia discovered that its human resources manager had encouraged an employee to file a charge of discrimination, Kia discharged the HR manager. Kia decided it could not trust the HR manager to do her job, specifically, to refer employees to the internal complaint system, protecting Kia from litigation. The HR manager sued for retaliation, asserting that Kia fired her because she had engaged in protected activity under Title VII.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Kia, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The HR manager’s deviation from Kia’s internal procedures and her support for the employee’s filing a charge could have been a violation of the HR manager’s job duties. In this case, however, the HR manager had tried to use Kia’s internal procedure for addressing complaints of discrimination, and the procedure had proven insufficient. Thus, the court found it was arguably reasonable for the HR manager to encourage the complaining employee to file a charge.

A dissenting judge called the decision a “landmine” for employers. An HR manager cannot work to resolve complaints internally while also urging coworkers to file lawsuits. But the decision may be more of a pitfall than a landmine. Kia’s responses to the HR manager’s internal referrals were (allegedly) so inadequate that they warranted the HR manager evading the internal system altogether. This was the HR manager’s saving grace on appeal.

Employers’ internal reporting and investigation procedures have to work. Otherwise, all employees, even HR employees, would be justified in going straight to the EEOC.

The case is Gogel v. Kia Motors Manufacturing of Georgia, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-00153 (11th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018).

EEOC Brags While Employees Look for New Jobs 2018-04-03T16:45:14-06:00

Posted on April 3, 2018

By John Alan Doran

On April 2, 2018, the EEOC issued a self-congratulatory press release in which it bragged mightily about a $100,000 judgment it just obtained in a discrimination lawsuit. The press release identified the defendant in the lawsuit as an Arizona wine bar by the name of 5th & Wine. The press release is a model of how not to toot your own horn.

First, 5th & Wine went out of business. It no longer exists. In Monty Python parlance, “it’s a dead parrot!” So, the EEOC’s victory will be little solace to all of the 5th & Wine employees who are now out of a job. And one is left to wonder whether the bar’s demise (and the consequent unemployment of its employees) had something to do with the EEOC litigation itself, which is always a costly affair.

Second, after the EEOC describes its brilliant victory, the press release eventually discloses that 5th & Wine ultimately did not even defend itself in the lawsuit; the court entered a judgment in favor of the EEOC by default. It was a cheap, walkover win. This is hardly the stuff a federal agency should crowing about. To the contrary, the press release confirms the EEOC’s tone-deafness; the EEOC is shown to be ignorant of the widespread consequences of its aggressive litigation style, while displaying a disturbing bent toward self-promotion in what is supposed to be an unbiased agency.

Second Circuit Rules Title VII Protects Sexual Orientation 2018-02-27T14:46:09-06:00

Posted on February 27, 2018

By Bill Wright

The Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit and the EEOC in ruling that Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., No. 15-3775 (2nd Cir. February 26, 2018). The Second Circuit agreed with the Seventh that the law evolves. The court ruled that, even if the authors of Title VII never intended to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation, (a) the text of the statute says that employers may not discriminate “because of sex” and (b) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, necessarily, logically, and as a result of “operationalizing” definitions, discrimination because of sex. The court relied on the EEOC’s 3 bases for its position – sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex, sexual orientation discrimination is sex stereotyping, and sexual orientation discrimination is discrimination based on a person’s association with others of the same sex.

The court’s opinion is laced with judicial views concerning the nature of law, the meanings of statutory terms, and the logic of relationships. Consequently, the issue seems headed for the Supreme Court, where we can expect a re-chopping of all its conclusions. In any case, the court took no position on whether statutory exceptions in Title VII or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might immunize religious employers. So, we will see plenty more philosophical debate about sex in the lower courts too.

Spell Out Interview Results 2017-05-12T10:53:06-06:00

Posted on May 12, 2017

By Bill Wright

An employer in Mississippi will face trial on a claim of race discrimination because it has not explained the interview scores two candidates received. In Calvin v. MS Dept. Rehab. Servs., Civil No. 3:15-CV-827-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss. May 4, 2017), the plaintiff claimed he was denied a promotion because of his race. He claimed he had more relevant experience than the Caucasian candidate; the employer asserted that the other candidate had scored better in the interviews and that the plaintiff could not prove otherwise. On the employer’s motion for summary judgment, the court ruled that the employer had not articulated a non-discriminatory reason for the employment action, because the employer had not explained the interview scores. The plaintiff also contended the questions themselves were designed to favor the other candidate, without regard for the duties of the position at stake.

The case is a warning for all employers. Having an “interview” does not cover underlying discrimination. Consider the job-relatedness of the questions and train the interviewers on scoring.

Comment While You Can 2017-02-22T15:45:59-06:00

Posted on February 22, 2017

EEOC Preparing to Adopt New Harassment Guidance

By Beth Ann Lennon

The EEOC recently issued new proposed Guidance regarding how EEOC investigators should process charges of discrimination alleging harassment. The new Guidance describes heightened requirements for employers seeking to rely on their anti-harassment policies and reporting procedures to avoid liability. Many of the EEOC’s “suggestions” illustrate the agency’s disconnect from the realities most employers face. If you have concerns about these new requirements, you may submit your comments directly to the EEOC before the Guidance is formally adopted. But act fast – the comment period closes March 21, 2017. Comments can be submitted here.

Staffing Company Has to Ask 2016-07-22T11:54:57-06:00

Posted on July 22, 2016

By Bill Wright

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals expanded on the EEOC’s guidance on a staffing company’s liability for its client’s discriminatory decisions. According to the court, a staffing company may be liable when a client asks the staffing company to remove a particular assigned employee, if the staffing company knew or should have known that the client’s decision was discriminatory. Nicholson v. Securitas Security Servs. USA, Inc., No. 15-10582 (5th Cir. July 18, 2016). In this case, the client asked the staffing company to remove an 83-year-old receptionist, saying that the receptionist could not perform new technology-related tasks. There was no evidence that the staffing company knew the client’s decision was based on discriminatory animus, but there was evidence the staffing company should have known: the staffing company did not verify the client’s story. The staffing company simply took the client’s word for it that the receptionist couldn’t do the job, even though the staffing company “generally” asked for the employee’s side of the story and “normally” addressed job performance with counseling rather than immediate termination.

We’re now used to the idea that a staffing company and its client will be joint employers for some purposes. Expect to discuss the reasons for joint employment decisions.

A Non-Material Threat 2015-12-15T09:00:17-06:00

Posted on December 15, 2015

By Joe Hunt

In Brandon v. Sage Corp., No. 14-51320 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015), the Fifth Circuit addressed whether a threat to cut a supervisor’s pay in half was, by itself, a “materially adverse employment action.” The plaintiff was a manager for a truck driving school in San Antonio. She reported up, through her manager, to the company’s president. When a part-owner of the company discovered that the plaintiff had hired a transgender woman, the part-owner threatened to cut the plaintiff’s salary in half. The plaintiff resigned and sued for retaliation under Title VII. The court noted that a realistic threat to drastically reduce an employee’s pay might deter a reasonable person from supporting a claim of discrimination and, therefore, might support a retaliation claim. But, here, the plaintiff knew company policy, knew the chain of command, and knew the part-owner had no final decision-making authority. She quit before the company president could weigh in to disavow the threat. At the very least, said the court, a reasonable employee would have followed the company’s grievance process or waited to receive confirmation of whether the threat was official.

Even when someone in a position of authority shoots his or her mouth off, there might be time to walk a threat back. Give it a try.

“Copy-Cat” Defense Prevails – Twice 2015-12-03T11:50:42-06:00

Posted on December 3, 2015

By Andy Volin

Employers may be sued for discrimination more than once, but usually later lawsuits are based on different events. A Texas employer recently persuaded a jury that new claims against it were fabricated by employees who knew about a prior successful lawsuit against the company and then made “copy-cat” claims.

The company showed the jury that the employees’ lawsuit used the same allegations as the earlier case, and the same lawyers brought both cases. The employees denied knowing anything about the prior case, but the jury saw an email by one of the employees recruiting witnesses to meet with the lawyers from the prior case and referring to the prior case. After the jury ruled against them, the employees filed a motion for a new trial, asserting that this type of evidence should not have been permitted. The Court rejected their arguments, because the evidence was relevant to the employer’s “copy-cat” defense, and the jury was entitled to consider whether the employee’s testimony was inconsistent with the other evidence. Vital v. National Oilwell Varco, No. 12:-CV-01357 (S.D.Tex. Nov. 30 2015).

Bad Timing, but No Punitives 2015-09-14T08:00:55-06:00

Posted on September 14, 2015

By Andy Volin

Firing someone right after they complain of discrimination can result in a retaliation claim, even if the employer thinks it has a good reason unrelated to the complaint. The Tenth Circuit just upheld a jury verdict in this situation, despite the employer’s assertion that it discharged the plaintiff for submitting fake letters from prior employers. Zisumbo v. Ogden Regional Medical Center (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015). The problem with the employer’s case was that it had the fake letters for months and only investigated after the employee complained of discrimination.

The outcome could have been worse for the employer, however, because the court refused to instruct the jury on punitive damages. The Tenth Circuit agreed that the employer had provided evidence of its “good faith efforts” to comply with the law, such as having appropriate policies, training, and enforcement of anti-discrimination policies. This was sufficient under previous Supreme Court cases. See Kolstad v. American Dental Assn., 527 U.S. 526 (1999). The fact that both management and the HR dept. apparently engaged in retaliatory conduct was not enough to defeat this defense.

Posted on September 6, 2019

Posted on September 25, 2018

Posted on April 3, 2018

Posted on February 27, 2018

Posted on May 12, 2017

Posted on February 22, 2017

Posted on July 22, 2016

Posted on December 15, 2015

Posted on December 3, 2015

Posted on September 14, 2015

Email Disclaimer

Email Disclaimer