Discrimination

EEOC Clarifies Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Defense

April 14, 2012 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On March 29, 2012, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity issued new regulations regarding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Specifically, the regulations relate to the “reasonable factors other than age” defense to disparate-impact claims. A disparate impact claim is when a company has a policy that appears to be neutral on its face, but in practice it disproportionately harms a legally protected group. A policy that has a disparate impacted based on age violates the ADEA unless it is based on reasonable factors other than age.

Under the new regulations, an employee who claims a company’s policy or practice has a disparate impact based on age is required to identify the specific policy he claims has a disparate impact on older workers. However, the employer has the burden to prove it has a reasonable basis for the policy other than age.

The regulations define “reasonable” to mean that an objectively reasonable employer would conclude the policy (1) is reasonably designed to meet a legitimate business purpose, and (2) was applied in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose. Some of the factors relevant to determining whether a factor on than age is reasonable include:

The extent to which the policy is related to the employer’s stated business purpose;
The degree to which the employer accurately defined and applied the policy, and provided guidance and training to the individuals who will apply it, in order to avoid age discrimination;
The extent to which the employer limited the discretion of supervisors when they apply the policy;
The degree to which the company evaluated the policy’s impact on older employees; and
The extent to which the policy harms older workers in terms of the degree of harm and the number of employees who are harmed; and the degree to which the employer took steps to minimize the harm, compared to the cost of taking those steps

The regulations further clarify that the defense is only available in disparate impact case. It is not available in disparate treatment cases, meaning cases in which an employee claims his employer intentionally discriminated against him because of age.

EEOC Explains When Employers Violate ADA By Requiring High School Diploma

February 22, 2012 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, the United States Equal Employment (EEOC) answered questions about when requiring a high school diploma violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC provided this information because it created confusion last November when it issued an informal letter discussing how the ADA applies to standards for job qualifications.

Group of Graduates.jpg Specifically, in November 2011 the EEOC issued a letter which indicates that an employer would violate the ADA if it rejected a job candidate because he does not have a high school diploma if a disability prevented the job candidate from graduating from high school, unless the employer proves the diploma requirement “is job related and consistent with business necessity.” The letter also indicates that an employer would “not be able to make this showing, for example, if the functions in question can easily be performed by someone who does not have a diploma.” The EEOC received substantial backlash to its position, including many who claimed it had created a disincentive to graduate from high school.

The EEOC’s article last week clarifies that the ADA does not prohibit employers from requiring job applicants to have high school diplomas. Rather, under limited circumstances a company might have to allow a job candidate to show he is qualified for the job if a disability made prevented him from graduating from high school. For example, an individual who could not graduate from high school because of a disability might prove he is qualified for a job by showing his work experience in similar jobs.

The EEOC’s article also makes it clear that employers are not necessarily required to hire a job candidate who is disabled. Companies have the right to select the job candidate who is best qualified for the job.

What is still unclear is whether the employer or the employee has the burden of proof when a company rejects a job candidate whose disability prevented him from graduating from high school. The EEOC’s November letter indicates that employers must demonstrate that a high school diploma is necessary for the job. However, its February article indicates that the disabled employee has to prove he is qualified for the job even though he did not graduate from high school. It seems likely the EEOC originally intended to place the burden on the employer, but changed its mind in response to the backlash it received last November.

EEOC Recognizes Pregnancy Discrimination Remains Widespread

February 16, 2012 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Press Release regarding pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC is a federal agency that helps enforce laws prohibiting employment discrimination claims based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, and disability, as well as related retaliation claims.

The EEOC’s Press Release recognizes that “employers should not make decisions based on stereotypes and presumptions about the competence” of pregnant employees. But even though the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed more than 30 years ago, and “most pregnant women want and need to work,” pregnancy discrimination continues to be a major problem in the workplace.

The EEOC indicates that women make up 47% of today’s workforce, and are either the primary or co-primary breadwinners in almost two out of every three families. As a result, in the words of the Senior Advisor for the National Partnership for Women & Families, Judith Lichtman, “women cannot afford to lose their jobs or income due to pregnancy or childbirth.”

The Press Release notes that in addition to pregnancy discrimination, both male and female caregivers experience significant discrimination in the workplace. It recognizes that these forms of employment discrimination are becoming bigger problems, and that parents are struggling to balance their obligations at work with their obligations to their families. As I discussed in a previous article, in 2009 the EEOC issued guidelines regarding Discrimination Against Caregivers. The EEOC’s Press Release promises to “vigorously enforce the anti-discrimination laws as they apply to pregnant women and caregivers.”

Religious Ministers Are Not Protected by Anti-Discrimination Laws

January 12, 2012 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, a unanimous United States Supreme Court ruled that ministerial employees of religious groups cannot bring employment discrimination claims against the religious groups for which they work. It ruled that those claims would violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The case involved Cheryl Perich, a teacher for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School. Ms. Perich took time off because she had a disability, narcolepsy. When she tried to return to work, the Church fired her. The Church specifically stated that Ms. Perich’s threat to bring a discrimination lawsuit against it was one of the reasons it fired her.

Ms. Perich then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She claimed the Church had wrongfully terminated her employment, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing her because she has a disability, and in retaliation for her threat to bring a disability discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC eventually filed a lawsuit against the Church, alleging it fired Ms. Perich in violation of the ADA.

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment requires a ministerial exception to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, it held that “requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so . . . interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.” It concluded this would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause because it would be a government interference with an internal church decision that impacts the church’s faith and mission. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Perich cannot proceed with her lawsuit.

The Court did not define who is a “minister” protected by this exception. However, it found Ms. Perich was a “minister” even though she was a teacher. It based its conclusion on facts including, among other factors, that (1) the Church commissioner her as a minister, (2) she had substantial religious training and had to pass an oral examination before she could be commissioned as a minister, (3) she held herself out as a minister and received a special housing allowance and tax benefits as a result, (4) she was assigned to perform her job “according to the Word of God,” (5) her job duties required her to teach the “Word of God” and to lead her students in prayer three times a day, and (6) twice a year she lead a school-wide chapel service.

The Supreme Court noted that it was not deciding whether the ministerial exception bars other types of lawsuits against religious groups, such as lawsuits for breach of employment contracts or personal injury claims against religious employers.

Job Candidate Can Pursue Age Discrimination Claim Based on Decision by Independent Contractor

December 28, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Late last month, a Federal Judge in the Southern District of New York ruled that a job candidate can continue with his age discrimination claim against a prospective employer based on a discriminatory hiring decision made by independent contractors who had the apparent authority to make hiring decisions on the employer’s behalf. Apparent authority is when a company’s actions lead someone else to incorrectly believe that he or she is an employee or agent of the company. This decision follows an earlier decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the same case, which recognized that Employers Can Be Held Liable for Discriminatory Hiring Decisions Made By Independent Contractors.

The case, Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., involves Michael Halpert, who was applying for a position as a “shower” for Manhattan Apartments, Inc. He was interviewed by Robert Brooks, a salesperson who worked for Manhattan Apartments as an independent contractor. Mr. Brooks did not have the authority to hire employees on behalf of Manhattan Apartments.

During Mr. Halpert’s job interview, Mr. Brooks indicated that Mr. Halpert was “too old” for the job. Several days later, Manhattan Apartments’ receptionist said the company was not hiring Mr. Halpert because “we were looking for someone younger.” Mr. Brooks then repeated that Mr. Halpert was not qualified for the job because of his age.

Mr. Halpert sued Manhattan Apartments, claiming it failed to hire him because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). After the Second Circuit ruled that an employer could potentially be held liable for the actions of an independent contractor, Manhattan Apartments filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Mr. Halpert was not its employee or agent, and there was not enough evidence to prove Mr. Brooks had the apparent authority to hire employees on its behalf.

However, the District Court disagreed. It found there was enough evidence for a jury to conclude that Manhattan Apartments had the apparent authority to hire Mr. Halpert. This evidence includes the fact that Manhattan Apartments allowed Mr. Brooks to use its offices, to answer his phones by saying “Manhattan Apartments, Inc.,” and to use business card that identify himself as a “Licensed Assc. Broker” for “Manhattan Apartments Inc.” It also included the fact that Manhattan Apartments’ receptionist explained the decision not to hire Mr. Halpert by saying that “we were looking for someone younger.” It therefore denied Manhattan Apartments’ motion for summary judgment to potentially give Mr. Brooks an opportunity to prove his case at a trial.

New York City Clarifies Right to Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Beliefs

December 16, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this year, Mayor Michael Bloomberg signed into law an amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The amendment clarifies when employers in New York City are required to provide reasonable accommodations for the religious observances and practices of their employees and prospective employees.

Employers must provide reasonable accommodations unless they cause the employer an undue hardship. The amendment to the NYCHRL indicates that some of the factors to consider when determining if an accommodation causes an undue hardship include:

1. The nature and cost of the accommodation;
2. The financial resources of the facility;
3. The number of employees working at the facility;
4. The effect providing the accommodation would have the facility’s expenses and resources;
5. The overall financial resources of the employer;
6. The number of employees working for the employer;
7. The number, type, and location of the employer’s facilities;
8. The composition and functions of the employer’s workforce; and
9. How geographically spread out or close together the employer’s facilities are.

The amendment also makes it that the employer has the burden to prove an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on it. However, it makes it clear an employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious practice or belief if the employee would be unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job even with the accommodation.

New York State, New Jersey, and federal law already require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious belief. However, this law is significant because New York City law has been interpreted very broadly. For example, as discussed in a previous article, New York’s Appellate Division has ruled, in the context of reasonable accommodations for a disability, that an Extended Medical Leave Can Be Reasonable Accommodation Under New York Law.

Jury to Decide Whether Caswell-Massey Discriminated Against Disabled Employee With Sleep Apnea

November 7, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last month, in Gibbs v. Caswell-Massey, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that Linda Gibbs could proceed with her disability discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Caswell-Massey. Caswell-Massey is a luxury bath and body products company in Edison, New Jersey. It hired Ms. Gibbs in 1993 . She was gradually promoted through the company’s ranks, and eventually became its Corporate Manager, Retail Stores and International Sales.

In 2000, Ms. Gibbs’s doctor diagnosed her with sleep apnea. This disability causes Ms. Gibbs fatigue, and often makes it difficult for her to stay awake at work. For example, she occasionally nods off at her desk. Caswell-Massey warned Ms. Gibbs on several occasions that her unexcused absences, sleeping, and poor job performance were unacceptable, and that she could be fired if she had any further performance issues. Nonetheless, Ms. Gibbs received an overall performance rating of “above overall expectations” in both 2005 and 2006.

In November 2006, Ms. Gibbs took a four-week disability leave to have hernia surgery. The company fired her two days after she returned to work. It claims its decision to fire was based on information it received from Steven Culter during Ms. Gibbs’s disability leave. Mr. Cutler was business partners with Ms. Gibbs’ husband. He and Mr. Gibbs apparently worked together at the Route 18 flea market in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Mr. Cutler claimed that Ms. Gibbs was stealing products from Caswell-Massey, and her husband was selling them at the flea market. He eventually provided the company with photographs of Caswell-Massey’s products that he was selling at the flea market, a copy of a book with Gibbs’s handwriting that listed prices for Caswell-Massey products, and his own sworn statement claiming Ms. Gibbs admitted she had taken products from Caswell-Massey.

Caswell-Massey investigated Mr. Cutler’s allegations. During the investigation, Ms. Gibbs claimed she did not know her husband was selling Caswell-Massey products at the flea market. She also claimed that Mr. Cutler was blackmailing her, and provided evidence including threatening voicemail messages that Mr. Cutler had left her. Caswell-Massey suspended Ms. Gibbs without pay while it conducted its investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, it fired Ms. Gibbs, supposedly because she had violated the non-compete provision in her employment contract.

The trial court dismissed Ms. Gibbs’s case, including her claim that Caswell-Massey fired her because of her disability in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). It ruled that she did not have enough evidence to prove that Caswell-Massey’s explanation for firing her was a pretext, or excuse, for discrimination.

The Appellate Division disagreed. It held that a reasonable jury could believe that Caswell-Massey discriminated against Ms. Gibbs, based on evidence supporting the conclusion that the company conducted an inept and cursory investigation, relied on Mr. Cutler’s statements even though he was a biased and questionable source, and ignored Ms. Gibbs’ 13 year history with the company, in addition to the lack of evidence that Ms. Gibbs’ husband ever sold a single Caswell-Massey product. However, the Court also indicated that a jury could come to the opposite conclusion, and could find that the company fired Ms. Gibbs because she violated her non-compete agreement. As a result, the Appellate Division sent the case back to the trial court, so a jury can decide whether Ms. Gibbs has proved that Caswell-Massey illegally discriminated against her.

Employer’s Failure to Follow Job Restructuring Plan Could Prove Discrimination

October 18, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently ruled that when a company does not follow through with the plan it used to justify firing an employee, such as its plan for a reorganization or reduction in force, that failure can be enough for a jury to conclude that the decision to fire the employee was discriminatory.

In Abraham v. American International Group, Inc., Lisbi Abraham sued American International Group (AIG) claiming the company fired him because of his race and national origin, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Mr. Abraham is a United States citizen of Indian descent. His was AIG’s Chief Technology Officer (CTO) for the company’s Domestic Brokerage and Information Services Groups. The LAD prohibits companies from firing employees based on their race or national origin.

In October 2005, AIG issued a report which concluded that it should eliminate 13 of its 20 CTO positions. In May 2006, AIG fired Mr. Abraham. AIG claimed it fired him because it was restructuring the Information Services Group to eliminate duplication and redundancy of job functions.

The Appellate Division explained that one way a plaintiff can prove discrimination is by offering evidence that discredits the employer’s explanation for its actions. It ruled that Mr. Abraham had evidence to discredit AIG’s claim that it fired him as part of a job restructuring. In particular, although several other people temporarily took over Mr. Abraham’s job duties after he was fired, none of his functions were permanently transferred to other employees. Since there is evidence that Mr. Abraham’s job never was merged into another job, as AIG claimed it intended to do when it justified firing Mr. Abraham, the Appellate Division ruled that a jury could conclude that AIG fired him because of his race or national origin.

The Appellate Division was careful to recognize that courts should not act as “super-personnel departments,” or second-guess employment decisions such as job restructuring. However, it also recognized that companies can violate the LAD in many “subtle and nuanced ways,” that there is rarely “smoking gun” evidence to prove discrimination, and that often there are not even any overt acts of discrimination. The court concluded that, after a trial, a jury could find that AIG discriminated against Mr. Abraham because of his race or national origin, or it could find that AIG’s decision to fire him was legitimate. It therefore sent his case back for a trial.

Third Circuit Finds Newark Hiring Practice Might Discriminate Based on Race

October 6, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that statistical evidence could be enough to prove that Newark’s residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees has a disparate impact based on race. A disparate impact claim is when someone claims that a seemingly neutral policy has a disproportionately negative impact on a particular legally protected group.

Specifically, in Meditz v. City of Newark, Gregory Meditz sued Newark after it refused to hire him as its Housing Development Analyst because he lives in Rutherford, rather than in Newark, New Jersey. He claims the Newark’s residency requirement for its non-uniformed employees is illegal because it has a disparate impact on non-Hispanic whites, since the population of Newark does not reflect the racial mix of the relevant job market. He alleges that fewer non-Hispanic white employees work for Newark as non-uniformed employees because of the residency requirement.

To support his claim, Mr. Meditz used statistics showing there is a much lower percentage of non-Hispanic white employees who work for Newark in non-uniformed positions (1) than there are in the general population of Newark, (2) than work for Newark in uniformed positions than non-uniformed positions, (3) than work for the government and private companies in Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, and Union Counties, and (4) than work for the Essex County government in Newark.

Newark, New Jersey.png Despite this evidence, the District Court dismissed Mr. Meditz’s employment discrimination lawsuit, finding his statistical evidence was not enough to prove that Newark’s residency requirement has a disparate impact based on race. The lower court relied on the fact that “Newark is New Jersey’s largest city with over 270,000 residents, 38,950 of whom are White.” It concluded that “[g]iven its diversity and large population, there is no need to redefine the relevant labor market past city limits for purposes of Title VII analysis.” Title VII is a federal employment law that prohibits employers from discriminating based on an employee’s race, color, national origin, or gender.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed and allowed Mr. Meditz to proceed with his case. It found his statistical evidence might be enough to prove that Newark’s residency requirement has a disparate impact based on race. However, it ruled that the District Court has to determine the relevant labor market before it can determine whether Mr. Meditz’s statistics prove his claim. The Third Circuit concluded that the District Court must consider factors including geographic location, available transportation to Newark, commuting patterns, and where employees working for private companies in Newark live.

If Mr. Meditz can prove that Newark’s residency requirement has a disparate impact based on race, then Newark’s only defense would be that it has a “business necessity” for having a residency policy. That means Newark would have to prove that the hiring criteria “must effectively measure the minimum qualifications for successful performance of the job in question.” Otherwise, its residency requirement would have an illegal disparate impact based on race, in violation of Title VII.

IT Professional Given Second Chance in Race Discrimination Case Against New Jersey Judiciary

September 20, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On August 29, 2011, in Bowers v. New Jersey Judiciary, Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth Vicinage, New Jersey’s Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s decision dismissing Thomas Bower’s lawsuit against his former employer, the New Jersey Judiciary. Thomas Bowers, an African-American, worked for the New Jersey Judiciary as an Information Technology Analyst. He claimed the Judiciary failed to promote him to Acting IT Manager and subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his race. Mr. Bowers was the only African-American in Monmouth County’s IT Division. In fact, there were no other African-American IT managers in the entire New Jersey Judiciary, and only one other racial minority, an Asian Indian.

Beginning in July 2005, Mr. Bowers’ supervisor took an extended medical leave. Shortly after, the Judiciary asked Mr. Bowers to take over the duties of IT Manager. This decision was subsequently recommended by Monmouth County’s Assignment Judge. Mr. Bowers performed the duties of the IT supervisor for approximately 8 months.

But when the Judiciary sought to formally appoint him as its Acting IT Manager, the Assistant Director of Technical Services and Operations, Jonathon Massey, gave a very negative opinion of Mr. Bowers, including claiming he “doesn’t understand simple technical things,” he “is lazy and stands around and watches others do the work,” and that another supervisor described him as a “cocky, arrogant, lazy, weasel, creep” who “does what he wants, doesn’t tell the truth” and has a “chip on his shoulder.” Not surprisingly, Mr. Bowers was not formally named the Acting IT Manager. However, informally he continued to perform the responsibilities of the IT Manager until April 2006, when the Judiciary named Troy Fitzpatrick its new permanent IT Manager.

After Mr. Fitzpatrick became the IT Manager, he gave Mr. Bowers assignments that were normally given to lower level and less senior IT employees, like answering Help Desk calls and creating a Help Desk manual. Mr. Fitzpatrick told Mr. Bowers that he could not assign work to anyone else, and also told him he could not leave his desk for any reason unless he found someone else to cover the Help Desk. Mr. Fitzpatrick also sought information from other employees about Mr. Bowers’ work ethic, and was always short and curt when he spoke to Mr. Bowers, as if he did not want to speak to him. In comparison, Mr. Fitzpatrick treated a newly hired white male employee much better than Mr. Bowers, such as giving him less work and not limiting his ability to leave his desk.

The trial court dismissed Mr. Bowers’ race discrimination and harassment claims because he was not subject to racial epithets and there was no direct evidence of race discrimination, he did not have enough evidence to prove either of those claims. But the Appellate Division disagreed. It explained that “discrimination rarely rears its ugly head directly. Rather, it typically manifests itself in subtle ways.” In particular, it found that a jury could find that Mr. Massey’s extremely negative recommendation was false and discriminatory. It noted that Mr. Massey admitted he knew very little about Mr. Bowers. Instead, it ruled that only a jury can decide whether the Judiciary’s decision not to make Mr. Bowers its Acting IT Manager was discriminatory.
Next week, I will discuss Mr. Bowers’ retaliation claim. In a subsequent article, I will discuss his claim that the judiciary failed to accommodate his disability.