Employment Discrimination

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.

Employment Law Cases Worth Watching at the Supreme Court

November 19, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The US Supreme Court reconvened last month with this term’s docket including several employment law cases, some that might even make for major changes from business as usual. Considering that about 10,000 cases seek review by the Supreme Court, which has great discretion over which ones it will hear, and only about 80 actually make it to oral arguments in the October-through-June term, it’s significant when employment law cases account for about 10% of the roster.

Most prominently among the employment law cases is Young v. United Parcel Service, which will look at whether pregnant employees are entitled to accommodations with work restrictions if similar accommodations are being offered to non-pregnant employees. It’s a test of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and whether a pregnant employee seeking accommodations should be given the same consideration as a UPS employee injured on the job or one who’s protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Regular pregnancies aren’t considered disabilities.)

Rights and Risks When it Comes to Pregnant Employees

October 22, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

With perks like arcades, ball pits, laundry services, round-the-clock meals, and pretty much anything else it takes to coddle energetic young employees not quite ready to assume full adulthood, Silicon Valley firms are legendary for offering workers anything it takes to keep them at their desks instead of tending to an outside life. The latest entry in the “They get what?” panoply of benefits for high-tech workers is egg freezing, currently at Apple and Facebook and, presumably, to be adopted by more companies if it proves popular. While it’s being touted as a generous perk worth around $20,000, there’s no shortage of fierce criticism that it’s simply a manipulative way to extract longer, more focused efforts from younger employees the companies don’t want to see distracted by families and greater work-life balance. (It’s worth noting that, in some cases, the offer is extended to spouses of employees, so it’s not just the female workers who are affected by the new benefit).

While the debate about whether such a program assists or coerces delayed family planning is new enough that it should provide plenty of back and forth for quite some time, a much more established consideration for women of childbearing age is how a pregnancy would affect their jobs. Despite some longstanding laws designed to protect pregnant workers’ livelihoods, there is often a good deal of confusion for both them and their employers regarding rights and obligations.

Georgia Still Waiting for Governor Deal to Ban the Box

August 18, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

After disappearing from his website earlier this month, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal’s executive orders are back online. Among the routine list of dozens of appointees to various boards and commissions, many had hoped to see the long-rumored “ban-the-box” order that would help remove employment barriers for convicted criminals who have served their time. Unfortunately for those hoping for the change, it looks like the wait will be a little longer. The good news for them, however, is that a growing movement of both public and private employers across the country is pushing to eliminate a major hurdle for many people trying to re-enter the workforce.

Anyone who’s filled out an employment application has encountered the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony (or crime)?” Check the ‘NO’ box and the application gets judged on other merits. But check the ‘YES’ box and, in most situations, the further explanation had better be compelling to hold the hiring manager’s attention, that is if they haven’t already decided to pass on the applicant. The ban-the-box movement sees this question as unnecessarily prejudicial, effectively making convicted felons unemployable long after they’ve paid their debts to society.

Back in the spring, Governor Deal said the details were being worked out for an executive order to ban the box from applications for state jobs. This would make the State of Georgia the latest in a substantial list of employers who have broken down the barrier, like Target, Walmart, and Bed Bath & Beyond–as well as more than 60 cities and counties across the nation, including Atlanta and Memphis. Of course, masked in this movement is that, at its core, ban-the-box is as much about fair hiring practices as it is about helping to reduce crime, since Bureau of Justice statistics show two-thirds of released prisoners will be arrested for another crime within three years, and three-quarters will be re-arrested within five years. The ban-the-box notion is straightforward. If former convicts can’t find work, they’ll have little choice but to revert to criminal activity, so let’s give them a chance to go straight.

Federal Court in Georgia Grants Summary Judgment to Employer in White Male Discrimination Case

August 11, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Recently, a federal court in Georgia ruled in favor of the employer in a case of racial and gender discrimination involving a white male employee.

In Tyler v. Muscogee County School District, Edward Tyler was a white male bus driver for the Muscogee County School District who ended up being passed over twice for promotions that were instead given to a black female and a white female, respectively. Tyler believed that he was not given a promotion due to his race and gender, and he eventually filed a lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The School District filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that Tyler had not produced enough evidence to show that its decision was based on discrimination.

The court looked at the facts to see if Tyler had established a dispute of fact as to whether his employer discriminated against him. Tyler had been employed as a bus driver for the School District since 1976 and had a flawless driving record, with no reported accidents throughout his 38-year career. Tyler had a bachelors degree in business management from an online institution and had trained other School District drivers prior to the requirement that trainers be certified. In January and October 2012, Tyler applied for two positions that would have promoted him. The School District claimed that it chose other candidates for those positions based purely on their qualifications. To evaluate candidates for promotion, the School District would appoint a panel to interview the candidates, which then completed a written evaluation form that included assigning points in different categories relating to the position’s job duties. Although points were figured into the final decision, they were not the only important factor. The panel claimed to look at the totality of circumstances. Based on that, the panel made a recommendation to the Transportation Director, who might then affirm the panel’s decision and forward it to the School District’s Chief Operations Officer, the Superintendent, and the Human Resources Department. Finally, the recommendation would be sent to the School Board for final approval.

Federal Court in Georgia Dismisses Discrimination Lawsuit in Part Because Plaintiff Failed to State a Claim

July 14, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal court in Georgia recently partially dismissed an employment discrimination suit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a claim.

In Williams v. Vilsack, plaintiff Mary Williams filed a complaint “pro se,” which means that she did so without representation by an attorney, claiming that she was discriminated against due to her race and gender, and also faced a hostile work environment.

Williams worked for the United States Department of Agriculture, which she claimed discriminated against her in the form of reprisal for a previous report of discrimination, when Williams’ employer denied her a non-competitive promotion to another position. Williams filed her complaint in 2008, and the matter went before an administrative law judge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In 2010, the judge found that the USDA did not discriminate against Williams on the basis of reprisal, and Williams appealed the Final Order. Yet in February 2013, the EEOC Office of Federal Operations affirmed the Final Order and denied Williams’ request for reconsideration. Williams then filed a civil lawsuit in federal court in December 2013.

Federal Court in Tennessee Allows Racial Discrimination Case to Move Forward

June 4, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal court in Tennessee granted in part and denied in part an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving racial discrimination and unpaid wages.

In Davis v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Rosie Davis was an African American who began working for FedEx in 1989. Beginning in 2003, she began working as a Marketing Coordinator, considered to be a nonexempt position, which means that she was entitled to overtime pay for hours exceeding eight in one day, or 40 per week. However, Davis believed that she was performing the duties of an Associate Marketing Specialist, an exempt position with higher pay.

Davis made a complaint in 2010 that she was working “out of class,” and her coworkers testified that she had performed significant managerial tasks, including training numerous colleagues and conducting meetings. FedEx then performed a job reclassification audit, which included an interview with Davis, review of her performance appraisals, and discussion with her supervisor. Davis detailed the extent of her job duties, and the investigator appeared surprised by the scope. Even so, Davis learned later that month that her job would not receive a reclassification because her work was primarily administrative. The conclusions were based on findings that Davis had never run a meeting and her statements were highly exaggerated.

District Court Judge in Tennessee Grants Summary Judgment in Discrimination Case Filed By White Male Employee

May 12, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Few are aware that white male employees are among those protected by Title VII anti-discrimination language. As long as that employee can show that he suffered adverse treatment due to his status, he may be entitled to relief. The plaintiff in Kellett v. Memphis Light, Gas and Watertried to prove this was the case, but was unsuccessful.

Plaintiff Walter Kellett filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 2011, claiming reverse racial discrimination by his employer, Memphis Light, Gas and Water (MLGW). Kellett argued that since his company’s reorganization, he had been treated differently than minority employees in similar positions. This included not receiving timely compensation or reevaluation, and being retaliated against for filing internal complaints against the company. The EEOC could not reach a conclusive determination on his claims and issued a Right to Sue notice in August 2011. Kellett then filed a lawsuit in November 2011, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among other things, he argued that his employer retaliated against him by placing more employees under his supervision, while not doing the same for minority supervisors.

In March 2013, a Magistrate Judge reviewed the case and issued a recommendation in December that MLGW’s motion for summary judgment be granted, effectively ending the case. Kellett objected to the recommendation, and the case came under the district court’s review. The district court then reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s findings and Kellett’s objections. The Magistrate Judge found that (1) any discrimination alleged before May 2010 was time barred; (2) Kellett never offered any direct evidence of adverse employment action, or identify a minority employer who was treated more favorably; and (3) Kellett could not make the basic “prima facie” case for discrimination. Continue reading ›

Federal Court in Georgia Grants Summary Judgment Motion Against Worker With Age Discrimination Claim

May 5, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A federal court in Georgia recently granted a summary judgment motion against an employee with an age discrimination lawsuit.

In Godwin v. WellStar Health System, Inc., Mary Godwin had been working as an order puller for WellStar Health Systems since 1999. By 2003, she had been promoted to the position of Buyer in WellStar’s Purchasing Department. Her duties included processing orders with outside vendors for goods made by WellStar’s different departments. In 2009, WellStar hired a new Vice President of the Supply Chain, Tony Trupiano, whose job included overseeing the Purchasing Department. Soon after, Godwin’s supervisor expressed concerns to Trupiano about Godwin’s performance, noting that she had made some errors with purchase orders. Later that year, the supervisor conducted an evaluation of Godwin and found her to be “below expectations.” Soon after, that supervisor left and a new one was hired, Ken Tifft. Tifft read the former supervisor’s comments on Godwin, but thought they lacked documentation, and thus approved a merit pay increase for Godwin. However, Tifft would later come to share the view that Godwin was performing “below expectations.”

In September 2010, Godwin was placed on a 90-day performance improvement plan, with follow-up consultations after 30 and 60 days. Each time, her supervisor noted improvement, but also continued concerns. Godwin was eventually placed on a second 90-day plan in February 2011. Later that month, Godwin provided her supervisor with a letter from her doctor stating that due to her arthritis, she needed to move around every hour. Her supervisor responded that Godwin needed to remain visible in the Purchasing Department, which was large enough to walk through. However, Godwin, then 63 years old, complained to the Human Resources Department that her supervisor’s comments were ageist and there was no accommodation of her need to walk.