Discrimination

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.

New York Judge Dismisses Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Against Bloomberg L.P.

August 18, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Yesterday, a federal Judge in Manhattan dismissed a class action claim from a gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had filed against Bloomberg L.P. In the case, the EEOC alleged that Bloomberg had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against pregnant employees and female employees upon their return from maternity leaves. Judge Loretta A. Preska, the Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the class action claim because she found the EEOC had not presented enough evidence to prove a pattern and practice of gender or pregnancy discrimination.

A pattern and practice case is when a group of employees claim a company has a broad practice or systemic pattern of unlawful discrimination. In this instance, the EEOC filed the lawsuit on behalf of female employees who claimed Bloomberg had demoted them, lowered their salaries, reduced the number of employees reporting to them, took away some of their job responsibilities, excluded them from meetings, and/or otherwise subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers. In addition to the three plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit, 78 other women had joined the case, for a total of 81 class members.

Pregnancy Discrimination 2.jpg In her 64-page opinion in EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Preska explained that ordinarily employees have to prove a pattern and practice of discrimination with a combination of statistical and anecdotal evidence of discrimination, to show the discrimination was part of a company-wide pattern or practice. She indicated that it is unusual that anecdotal evidence alone can prove a pattern or practice of discrimination, especially at a large company like Bloomberg, which employs more than 10,000 employees.

However, the EEOC apparently did not have any statistical evidence to support its claim. It also did not have any direct evidence of discrimination, or any evidence of an explicitly discriminatory policy. Instead, it tried to rely only on anecdotal evidence of discrimination. This evidence included the fact that nearly every one of the class members claimed that Bloomberg had decreased her compensation, job responsibilities and/or number of direct reports, either after she became pregnant or after she returned from her maternity leave.

In contrast, Bloomberg had at least two expert witnesses who concluded that there was no pattern or practice of discrimination at the company. Specifically, one of Bloomberg’s expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Ward, used statistics to conclude that class members actually received higher average compensation than non-class members. He also found no significant differences between the raises class members received versus non-class members. Another expert for Bloomberg, Dr. John Johnson, concluded that the class members actually received nearly better raises after maternity leaves than employees who took time off for other reasons.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that while there might be some individual cases of pregnancy and gender discrimination at Bloomberg, the EEOC did not have enough evidence to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination. Accordingly, Judge Preska dismissed the class action from the case. However, the EEOC has indicated that it intends to continue to pursue the individual claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs.

Supreme Court Rejects Gender Discrimination Class Action Against Wal-Mart

July 1, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

On June 20, 2011, in a closely watched employment law case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a group of approximately one-and-a-half-million female employees of Wal-Mart could not bring a class action gender discrimination lawsuit against the company. Specifically, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court found the women’s claims were not similar enough to each other to proceed as a class action. It reached that conclusion because the alleged discriminatory decisions were made by hundreds of different managers throughout the country, and were not based on a uniform corporate policy.

Three women, Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana filed the lawsuit. They alleged that Wal-Mart gave its local store managers broad discretion to make salary and promotional decisions, the managers used that discretion to discriminate against women, and the company knew about the discrimination but did nothing to stop it. The women claim this is discrimination on the basis of their sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination due to gender, race, color, and religion.

Class actions are cases in which one or more individuals bring a case on behalf of a much larger group. To bring a class action, the plaintiffs must prove:

The class is so large that it is impractical for each plaintiff to sue individually;
There are questions of law and fact common to the whole group;
The claims of the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit (the class representatives) are typical of the claims of the rest of the group; and
The class representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the whole group.

In the Walmart case, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs could not meet the first two requirements because they did not have any evidence that Wal-Mart had a company-wide policy or practice of discriminating against women. The Court found it is not enough to show the company gave broad discretion to its managers, and many or most of those managers abused their discretion by discriminating. Rather, it concluded that since the members of the potential class had been impacted by millions of separate employment decisions made by thousands of different supervisors, it would be impossible to decide all of their claims in a single case. As a result, it ruled that the case cannot proceed as a class action. Instead, it sent it back to the trial court so Ms. Dukes, Ms. Kwapnoski, and Ms. Arana each can try to prove her individual gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart.

New Jersey Employees Can Enforce Employer’s Promise of Reinstatement After Maternity Leave

June 22, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

In an important employment law decision, on June 8, 2011, New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruled that an employee can enforce her employer’s promise that she would have a job when she returned from her maternity leave. The Court reached that conclusion even though the company, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., included a clear disclaimer in both its Code of Business Ethics and the employee’s job application which stated that she is an employee-at-will who can be fired “at any time, with or without grounds, just cause or reason and without giving prior notice.”

In Lapidoth v. Telcordia Technologies, Inc., employee Sara Lapidoth asked her employer for a six-month maternity leave from her position as a manager on a product called ARIS, for the birth of her tenth child. The letter Telcordia sent her granting her leave also guaranteed that the company would reinstate her to the same job or a comparable one if she returned to work within 12 months. Ms. Lapidoth later asked Telcordia to extend her leave by 6 months, for a total of a one-year maternity leave. Telcordia granted her request through another letter that promised to reinstate her at the end of her leave.

However, before Ms. Lapidoth was ready to return from her maternity leave, Telcordia decided to eliminate one of its two ARIS manager positions. The company decided to lay off Ms. Lapidoth because the only other ARIS manager had slightly better performance ratings. Since the company did not have any appropriate job openings, it fired Ms. Lapidoth.

The Appellate Division ruled that Ms. Lapidoth’s maternity leave was not protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) because she took off more than 12 weeks. Both the FMLA and the NJFLA require employers to give qualified employees up to 12 weeks off for the birth of a child.

However, the Court ruled that the letters Telcordia sent to Ms. Lapidoth could be enforceable employment contracts that guaranteed her a job when she was ready to return from her maternity leave. It found that, even though the company’s Code of Business Ethics and Ms. Lapidoth’s employment application said she was an employee-at-will, and indicated that nothing else could create any contractual rights between her and the company, the letters granting her maternity leave seemed to contradict those statements. The Court also stated that, although the letters said the company did not have to reinstate Ms. Lapidoth if it had to eliminate her job, that was not necessarily a defense because the company decided it had to eliminate one of two ARIS manager positions, but not necessarily Ms. Lapidoth’s position. The Court also noted that Telcordia reinstated Ms. Lapidoth after each of her nine previous maternity leaves. Based on the circumstances, the Appellate Division concluded that a jury could find the letters guaranteeing Ms. Ladipodth a job at the end of her maternity leave created an enforceable employment contract.

New Jersey Makes it Illegal to Discriminate Against Unemployed Job Candidates

May 2, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last November, I wrote about a potential new law that would make it illegal for companies in New Jersey to say that unemployed job candidates need not apply for job openings. Governor Christopher Christie conditionally vetoed the bill, and recommended several changes to it. The Legislature passed an amended version of the bill, which Governor Christopher Christie signed it into law on March 29, 2011. The new law goes into effect on June 1, 2011.

Under the new unemployment discrimination law, it is illegal for employers to knowingly or purposefully publish or print on the internet a job advertisement that states that (1) being currently employed is a job requirement; (2) the employer will not consider job applicants who are currently unemployed; or (3) the employee will only consider job applicants who are currently employed. However, the law does not apply if it would conflict New Jersey civil service laws. It also does not prevent companies from advertising that only job applicants who are currently working for the employer will be considered.

The new employment law statute also makes it clear that it does not prohibit employers from advertising any other qualifications for a job permitted by law, such as requiring a valid professional or occupational license, certificate, registration, permit or other credential, or a minimum level of education, training, or experience.

The new law makes it clear that it does not give individuals who have been impacted the right to bring a private lawsuit. Instead, employers who violate the law are subject to fines of up to $1,000 for a first violation, and up to $5,000 for any subsequent violations. This is significantly lower than the originally proposed fines of up to $5,000 for a first violation and up to $10,000 for any subsequent violations.

More About the EEOC’s New Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations

April 19, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Last week, I discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s new regulations regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) which discuss the newly broadened scope of the ADA, and the terms “major life activity” and “substantially limited.” In this article, I will focus on ADAAA regulations that cover the concept of “mitigating measures” for disabilities, and how to prove that an employee has a “record of” a disability or is “regarded as” having a disability.

What Are “Mitigating Measures,” and When Can They Be Taken Into Consideration Under the ADAAA?

Under the ADAAA, most “mitigating measures” must be ignored when determining whether an individual is disabled include. A mitigating measure is something that reduces or minimizes the limitations caused by a disability. Examples of mitigating measures include medication, medical equipment and devices, prosthetic limbs, low vision devices, hearing aids, mobility devices, oxygen therapy equipment, use of assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications, psychotherapy, behavioral therapy, and physical therapy.

However, the new ADAAA regulations indicate it is appropriate to consider the negative side effects of a mitigating measure when determining whether an individual is disabled. Similarly, it is proper to consider a mitigating measure when deciding whether an employee is qualified for his job, or is entitled to a reasonable accommodation for his disability.

What Does it Mean to Have a “Record of” a Disability?

In addition to protecting individuals who are actually disabled, the ADA protects individuals with a “record of” a disability. Under the new ADAAA regulations, someone has a record of a disability if he previously had an impairment that substantially limited him in a major life activity, or was misclassified as having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.

What Does it Mean to Be “Regarded as” Having a Disability?
The ADAAA also protects individuals who are “regarded as” being disabled. According to the new regulations, this includes any employee whose employer correctly or incorrectly believed he has an impairment, unless the employer reasonably believed the impairment was both minor and expected to last for six months or less. Unlike the previous ADA regulations, under the new regulations an employer does not have to believe the impairment substantially limited the employee’s ability to perform a major life activity to regard an employee as disabled.

EEOC Issues New Americans with Disabilities Act Regulations

April 12, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

As I previously discussed, protection for disabled employees was vastly expanded on January 1, 2009, when the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), a law expanding the scope of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), went into effect. On March 25, 2011, the United States Equal Employment Commission (EEOC) established its final regulations clarifying the ADAAA. Courts generally must follow these regulations unless they are inconsistent with the ADAAA.

Below, I discuss some of the regulations regarding the scope of the ADAAA, and the terms “major life activity” and “substantially limited.” Next week, I will discus additional regulations that explain when an employer can consider “mitigating measures” for disabilities, and how to prove that someone is covered by the ADA because he has a “record of” a disability or is “regarded as” having a disability.

The Scope of the ADAAA
The new regulations make it clear that the ADAAA is intended to broaden the definition of the term “disability” and to make it easier for employees to meet that definition. The ADA still covers individuals who have (1) an actual physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” a “major life activity;” (2) a “record of” such an impairment, and (3) are “regarded as” having an impairment. However, the meanings of those terms have been broadened significantly.

What is a “Major Life Activity” Under the ADAAA
The regulations explain that the term “major life activity” includes caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working.

Some impairments almost always are considered disabilities. Examples include deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation), partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.

What Does it Mean to “Substantially Limit” a Major Life Activity?
The regulations say the term “substantially limits” should be interpreted broadly and does not necessarily require an individual to be severely or significantly limited. Generally, the focus should be on whether the employer discriminated against the employee, not on whether the employee meets the definition of disabled.

They also say that, when determining whether the impairment is a disability, you can consider the condition, duration, and manner in which an individual can perform a major life activity. They further clarify that an impairment can be covered by the ADAAA even if it lasts less than six months, is episodic, or is in remission. For example, episodic impairments like epilepsy, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, and cancer in remission, all can be impairments under the ADAAA.

Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Gives Bayer a Headache

April 6, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

A group of six female employees of Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals recently filed a class action lawsuit claiming the company discriminated against them because of their gender. The case, which was filed in the United States District Court in Newark, New Jersey on March 21, 2011, seeks $100 million in damages.

The lawsuit claims Bayer discriminated against its female employees who hold Associate Director and higher level positions, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Katherine Kimpel, the employment lawyer who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, “Bayer engages in systemic discrimination against its female employees – particularly those with family responsibilities – by paying them less than their counterparts, denying them promotions into better and higher paying positions, limiting their employment opportunities to lower and less desirable job classifications, and exposing them to different treatment and a hostile work environment.”

Female Employee Being Discriminated Against.jpg According to a press release issued by the law firm representing the female employees, the lawsuit claims Bayer published articles describing women as being prone to “mood swings,” “indecision,” and “backstabbing,” and concluding that “women with power are ‘loose cannons’ who often feel threatened by colleagues.” The case further alleges that Bayer’s managers made disparaging comments about working mothers, including saying the company “needed to stop hiring women of reproductive age.”

According to a company spokesperson, “Bayer denies the allegations of gender discrimination and will vigorously defend itself against these charges.” However, “Bayer will not comment further on pending litigation, other than to note that it is committed strongly to a policy of non-discrimination and equal treatment for all employees.” Bayer HealthCase Pharmaceuticals, which is a subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, has its headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey.

Appellate Court Reduces $10 Million Punitive Damages Award For Age Discrimination to $2,465,000

March 22, 2011 | by Jonathan I. Nirenberg

Earlier this month, New Jersey’s Appellate Division reduced a punitive damages award in an age discrimination case in which the jury had awarded $10 million, to slightly less than $2.5 million. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a defendant when its actions are especially egregious.

The Evidence of Age Discrimination

Nicholas Saffos worked for Avaya, Inc. and its predecessors, AT&T and Lucent Technologies, for more than 20 years. In 2002, Avaya hired M. Foster Werner, Jr., as the head of Mr. Saffos’ department. Mr. Saffos quickly noticed that Mr. Werner was firing employees who were over 40 years old, and replacing them with younger workers. He also noticed that Mr. Werner was favoring the younger employees in his department.

In 2003, Mr. Werner suddenly began criticizing Mr. Saffos’ job performance and examining his work, even though he had received positive performance reviews in the past. In August 2003, Mr. Werner placed Mr. Saffos on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). Avaya fired him 30 days later. At the time, Mr. Saffos was 49 years old. Avaya hired a 33-year-old to replace him. Mr. Saffoshas other evidence of age discrimination, including the fact that the average age of an employee in the department decreased by 10 years during the first two years that Mr. Werner was in charge.

The Jury Award

After a trial, a jury found in Mr. Saffos’ favor and awarded him $250,000 for emotional distress, $325,500 for past lost wages (“back pay”), $167,500 for future lost wages (“front pay”), and $10 million on punitive damages. However, the trial judge reduced the punitive damages to a little over $3.7 million, which was five times the other damages the jury had awarded because he believed the jury’s award was unreasonably high. Both sides appealed.

The Appellate Court Reduced the Punitive Damages Award

On appeal, in Saffos v. Avaya Inc., the Appellate Division reduced the punitive damages even further. It stated that although courts are not required to limit punitive damages to 5 times the actual damages, the trial judge acted properly when he used that as a guideline to find the punitive damages award was disproportionate to the harm Mr. Saffos experienced and disproportionate to the damages he recovered.

However, it ruled that emotional distress damages often include a punitive element, and the $250,000 the jury awarded to Mr. Saffos for emotional distress already included a punitive element since Mr. Saffos did not suffer any physical harm as a result of the emotional distress, and he did not need any psychiatric treatment. As a result, it concluded that the emotional distress damages should not have be included when calculating the punitive damages as 5 times the jury’s award. The Appellate Division therefore reduced the punitive damages award to just under $2.5 million, which is 5 times the economic damages the jury awarded.