Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
An employee who was fired after he complained the company’s workplace philosophy conflicted with his religious beliefs has legitimate claim for religious discrimination and retaliation.
Even though a salesman won a verdict of only $1 in his religious discrimination claim against his former company, he was still the prevailing party and entitled to have his employer pay his attorney’s fees.
The company, a homebuilder, promoted a workplace free of “negative energy” and the burdens of employees’ past lives. It strongly encouraged all employees to attend mind, body, energy (MBE) meetings, keeping track of those who did. The plaintiff complained on several occasions that the MBE meetings, which included discussions of spirituality, Eastern religions and reincarnation, conflicted with his Protestant religious beliefs. He refused to attend the meetings on several occasions.
The plaintiff was fired after a newly hired female associate complained he had harassed her. Although the plaintiff admitted to making several inappropriate comments, he contended that the female associate had actually initiated the sexual discussion. Indeed, she was fired several months later for seriously inappropriate conduct during a work outing. The court held that the jury was entitled to find that the plaintiff was fired, not for the alleged harassment, but because of his objections to the MBE meetings and their religious content. The evidence showed that the plaintiff held a sincere religious belief that conflicted with his employer’s requirements, he told his employer about his objections, and he suffered an adverse employment action. By awarding him only $1 in damages, the jury may have implicitly recognized that the case was not a terribly strong one, but it still believed that the employer was wrong. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to have his employer pay his attorney’s fees, which amounted to more than $20,000.
This case demonstrates that an employer does not need to disparage an employee’s own religion to be liable for discrimination. By terminating someone who complained about the use of religious symbolism and messages to promote workplace values, the company violated the law.
--Marc Jacobs, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Ollis v. HearthStone Homes Inc., -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 214674 (8th Cir., July 27, 2007)].
Employer’s failure to consider reasonability of request by wheelchair-bound employee for grace period in which to return from lunch violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A wheelchair-bound call center representative who had trouble getting to work on time properly implemented the interactive process with his employer in an attempt to find a reasonable accommodation, and his employer’s failure to respond violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The employer required its call-center representatives to be punctual for their shifts, disciplining employees for being as little as three minutes tardy. The plaintiff had particular difficulty getting to work and back from lunch on time, because the company did not have any free handicapped parking spaces and because the layout of the call center made maneuvering his wheelchair to a free cubicle difficult. He asked his employer to allow him a 15-minute grace period to return from lunch, but his employer refused and fired him for tardiness instead.
When the plaintiff sued for a violation of the ADA, the employer contended that the plaintiff had the burden of suggesting a specific accommodation. It also argued that punctuality was an essential function of the job. The jury and court disagreed with both arguments. It found that the plaintiff upheld his burden by making his employer aware he needed accommodation and that the employer failed to then engage in an interactive process to determine whether an accommodation was possible. The court also agreed with the jury that a 15-minute grace period after lunch was reasonable; it merely established a slightly different punctuality standard for the plaintiff than for other employees but did not eliminate that job function altogether.
This case is a good representation of how an employer opened itself up to significant liability by failing to discuss the needs of an employee with a disability. It would not have been difficult for the employer to have a discussion about an accommodation, especially because the plaintiff had already requested one. Instead, the defendant was liable to pay nearly $115,000 in damages.
-- Marc Jacobs, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see EEOC v. Convergys Customer Mgmt. Group Inc., -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 1948467 (8th Cir., July 7, 2007)].
Employer could be held liable for terminating pregnant employee, because biased manager initiated termination paperwork and higher-level managers did not conduct independent review.
When a pregnant home healthcare employee was placed on extended bed rest by her doctor, her supervisor fired her, admitting at the time that she knew it was illegal to do so but that she had a business to run and could not have a pregnant employee working at the branch office.
When the plaintiff sued for discrimination, the employer contended that the supervisor’s comments were merely stray remarks and not relevant, because she was not the final decision maker for the termination.
The court disagreed and held that the supervisor’s comments were direct evidence of discrimination and could be imputed to the company. Although the termination decision technically came from the company’s regional headquarters, the regional manager who signed off on the termination testified that he relied solely on the supervisor’s report and did not conduct his own investigation into the matter. Therefore, the causal link between the supervisor’s bias and the decision to terminate the plaintiff was not broken.
This case shows that employers cannot insulate themselves from liability by simply having higher-level employees rubber-stamp employment decisions made by biased managers. In some cases, the suggestion of a biased supervisor can be overcome if higher-level managers make an independent, unbiased decision regarding the targeted employee, but that did not occur in this case.
--Marc Jacobs, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care Inc., -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 2083710 (5th Cir., July 23, 2007)].
Exclusion from overtime opportunity can be considered adverse employment action.
A female police officer who lost the chance to earn overtime worth nearly $1,000 when her supervisor refused to send her on an out-of-town security project could move forward on her claim that the decision was the result of discrimination, a federal court in Chicago recently ruled.
When the police department in Washington, DC, anticipated problems with an upcoming International Monetary Fund meeting, it requested assistance from other police departments, including the plaintiff’s. A memo sent out asking for volunteers to spend two days in Washington described the opportunity as an “excellent on-the-job training exercise” that could prepare officers for a similar meeting planned for Chicago. The memo also mentioned that due to issues with hotel accommodations, a “lone female officer” would not be sent. The job would pay significant overtime to all who attended.
The plaintiff was denied the right to work the meeting in Washington. Her supervisor allegedly first told her that the assignment would be difficult and dangerous, because she was a female. The city later justified the decision by explaining that it did not have enough hotel rooms for an extra female officer. In reality, four male officers and one female ended up having rooms to themselves, while the rest of the detail -- nearly 260 officers -- shared rooms.
The court held that in this case, the denial of overtime was an adverse employment action. It constituted a significant alteration of the plaintiff’s employment, particularly considering that the police department viewed the assignment as a good training opportunity and the financial rewards were significant. Further, if believed, the evidence the plaintiff provided (the memo and her supervisor’s statements) regarding the reasons she was excluded from the trip was direct evidence of discrimination. It was for a jury, not the court, to decide whom to believe.
This case expands the notion of adverse employment action to include more than simple demotions, pay cuts and terminations. Although not every action that makes an employee upset will be an adverse action, the court stressed that the concept extends beyond labels such as reductions in salary or bonus.
--Marc Jacobs, Esq., Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Lewis v. Chicago, -- F.3d --, 2007 WL 2128308 (7th Cir., July 26, 2007)].
