Employment Discrimination

What Conduct Is (And Is Not) Grounds for a Federal Title VII Action in Georgia

September 23, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Several recent cases decided by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals offer an important lesson to both employers and employees in Georgia when it comes to federal Title VII lawsuits. Namely, the lesson is that there is a wide range of bad behavior that an employer should not condone, even in isolated frequency, but that are still not viable bases for an employee’s Title VII lawsuit. Title VII, as the courts have repeatedly held, does not exist to impose a “general civility code” within the workplace. To be the foundation of a Title VII lawsuit, conduct must be more than isolated incidents, and be more than just rude conduct, but must be a pervasive pattern of harassment that directly ties to the employee’s inclusion in a protected class.

In a case decided earlier this year, a Florida doctor, Cheryl Clark, sued the hospital at which she worked. She accused the chair of her department of discriminating against her as a woman. The chair allegedly told Clark she should not apply for a directorship because was “too confrontational” and “intimidating,” which Clark understood to mean that her conduct was inappropriate for a woman.

Employer Not Required to Offer Telecommuting Accommodation to Employee Who Could Not Perform Job’s Essential Functions

September 9, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a very important topic within the realm of disability discrimination law: specifically, when is telecommuting a reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability? In the case of one Ford Motor Co. employee, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the employer’s refusal to allow an employee to telecommute four days per week was not the denial of a reasonable accommodation, but a case of an employee unable to perform the essential functions of her job.

The employee, Jane Harris, was a resale buyer with Ford who had irritable bowel syndrome. Harris’ job performance steadily declined during her time with Ford, in part due to her condition. Ford had occasionally approved telecommuting for Harris, but, even with the accommodation, the employee’s performance continued to worsen.

Employment Status and Your Federal Age Discrimination Case

August 26, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A surgeon who sued a hospital after the hospital revoked the doctor’s surgical privileges when the surgeon turned 70 never got the chance to prove the existence of age-based discrimination. Whether or not the hospital made its decision based upon age, the surgeon could not succeed on his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim. The trial court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals both concluded that the doctor failed to show that the relationship between the hospital and surgeon was one of employer-employee, not employer-independent contractor. Since independent contractors cannot pursue ADEA claims, the doctor’s case failed.

Moshe Ashkenazi was a surgeon who provided on-call services at the South Broward Hospital District. After the hospital revoked his privileges, the doctor sued. The septuagenarian surgeon claimed that the decision to revoke his privileges was the result of age discrimination. The hospital asked for summary judgment in the case. Ashkenazi, it argued, could not mount a successful age discrimination case because he was an independent contractor, not an employee of the hospital. The trial court agreed and ruled for the hospital.

Christian Campus Ministry Allowed to Terminate Employee for Marital Problems, Sixth Circuit Says

August 12, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Most employers and employees are aware that churches may legally make certain hiring and firing decisions that would otherwise be impermissible if the employer were not a religious institution. But what about religion-related employers that are not churches or church-based entities? In a very noteworthy case for Tennessee employers and employees, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an entity dedicated to collegiate campus ministry could terminate a “spiritual director” for failing to repair her failing marriage.

The case arose after InterVarsity Christian Fellowship terminated Alyce Conlon in 2011. Conlon had worked as a spiritual director for the evangelical entity since 2004, but in 2011, she confided in her supervisors that she and her husband were contemplating divorcing. The fellowship put her on leave for the purpose of working to salvage her marriage. By December, with the employee’s marriage still on the rocks, InterVarsity terminated Conlon. Conlon’s husband filed for divorce a month later.

Eleventh Circuit Decides Employer Lacked Knowledge of Employee’s Disability

August 5, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A nursing home employee, who was pursuing her employer for multiple forms of discrimination and retaliation, lost in her effort to revive her disability discrimination claim on appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an employer’s mere knowledge that an employee had visited a doctor and that the doctor had advised the patient she could not return to work “until further notice” was not enough to prove that the employer knew the employee had a disability.

The employee, Portia Surtain, worked at Hamlin Place of Boynton Beach, a nursing home in South Florida. During her employment, Surtain submitted a request for medical leave. The employer, aware that Surtain had visited a doctor for “unknown health reasons” and that the doctor had advised her to stay away from work until further notice, terminated the employee.

Woman Wins Workplace Discrimination Action in US Supreme Court After Her Muslim Attire Clashed With Company Dress Code

July 22, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an important ruling on what federal law requires of employers when it comes to accommodation of religious practice, the US Supreme Court ruled that a retail clothing store impermissibly discriminated against a Muslim teen when it decided that her hijab violated its company dress code and refused to hire her. The ruling makes clear that employers cannot violate the law even if employees do not explicitly ask for accommodations of their religious practice and even if the employer does not know (but merely suspects) that an employee will need an accommodation, as long as that religion-based accommodation was a motive in the employer’s action.

Samantha Elauf, when she was 17, did what many teens do. She went to a local shopping mall and applied for a sales job. In Elauf’s case, her targeted employer was an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At her employment interview, the teen wore a black head scarf. She did not state why she wore the piece, and the employer did not ask.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Georgia Employee’s Race and Age Discrimination Claims

March 11, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Georgia employee’s lawsuit that alleged unlawful race and age discrimination. The plaintiff asserted that he was fired from his job because of his race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“the Act”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The employer, a company that made and shipped water treatment chemicals, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was fired for his on-the-job performance. The trial court granted the motion, and, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of many personal characteristics, including race. Under the Act, an employer with 15 or more employees may not fire an employee because of his or her race. Similarly, the ADEA prohibits discrimination against employees who are at least 40 years old.

Tennessee Staffing Agency and Recycling Center Sued by EEOC for Alleged Disability Discrimination

March 4, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued a Tennessee staffing agency and an international recycling company with a facility in Tennessee over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The action was based on the defendants’ treatment of a deaf employee. The plaintiff sought temporary employment through the staffing agency and was assigned to work at the recycling center. However, the plaintiff suffered from a hearing impairment disability, and once the defendants learned of the disability, the complaint alleges that the defendants informed her that she could no longer work there.

The ADA protects employees with a recognized disability from discrimination in the workplace. It is a federal law that applies to most employers with more than 15 employees in Tennessee, Georgia, and the rest of the United States.

Tennessee Employer Did Not Unlawfully Discriminate Against Prospective Employee Who Refused to Provide Social Security Number on Religious Grounds

February 25, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent Sixth Circuit holding affirmed a federal district court’s ruling that an employer did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by declining to hire a prospective employee because he refused to provide his social security number on religious grounds.

The plaintiff applied for an internship with the defendant, an energy company. However, he refused to provide his potential employer with a social security number. The plaintiff asserted that he did not have a social security number because he disavowed it upon turning 18 due to his sincere religious beliefs. When the defendant refused to hire him, he filed suit alleging religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid legal claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion.

A person who files a Civil Rights Act religious discrimination claim must prove three elements:

There was an employment requirement that conflicts with a genuine religious belief held by the plaintiff;
The plaintiff advised the employer of the belief; and
The employer terminated or disciplined the plaintiff for refusing to comply with the employment requirement.

A Look at Recent Title VII Decisions

December 10, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A broad set of protections, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on a number of factors, including race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Over the past 50 years, courts and lawmakers have dedicated a lot of time to tweaking the law and figuring out how to apply it to situations that may be completely unique or reflective of society’s ever-evolving norms.

Recent months have proved to be no exception, with a number of continuing legal challenges arising under Title VII further defining the breadth and boundaries of the protection it offers. Around the country and even up to the US Supreme Court, Title VII litigation is making for some interesting decisions and debates. Here are some of the more noteworthy questions and revelations of late:

Volunteers aren’t entitled to Title VII protections from employment discrimination

This might strike some as obvious, since the very notion that one is a volunteer rather than a paid employee should be enough to draw a distinction. Numerous other recent suits brought by interns and independent contractors looking to confer employee status upon themselves, however, have blurred the lines more than before. As in those cases, a big question for the Sixth Circuit in Sister Michael Marie v. American Red Cross was the amount of control exercised over the means and manner of the volunteers’ performance.