Employee Rights Post : Ellen Simon's Employee Rights Post : Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Workplace Discrimination & Harassment Advice & Consultations

Winning Plaintiff In Supreme Court Crawford Decision Gets Big Verdict For Title VII Retaliation

We often read about cases in the courts of appeals, including the ultimate court of appeals -- the United States Supreme Court -- in which the plaintiff prevails and gets the opportunity to take his or her case to a jury.

We study these cases because of the legal principles and precedents involved and how they will affect other clients and cases in the future.

We don't usually hear -- and it's not commonly reported -- what eventually happens to the plaintiff who won the reversal and got the chance to go to court. That's because some of those cases are settled, and the settlements are often times confidential. In other instances, the results of the trial simply don't make the news.

So I was really pleased this morning to read in one the bulletins I receive from the National Employment Lawyers Association about the fantastic verdict on Monday for Vicky Crawford, the plaintiff in the landmark United Supreme Court decision Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cty .

Here's what happened in the case.

Facts Of The Case

In 2002, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee ("Metro") began looking into rumors of sexual harassment by the Metro School District's employee relations director, Gene Hughes.

When Vicky Crawford, a 30 year Metro employee , was asked whether she had witnessed "inappropriate behavior" on the part of Hughes, Crawford described several instances of sexually harassing behavior including instances where Hughes: 

• repeatedly put his crotch up to her window and

• entered her office and grabbed her head and pulled it to his crotch

Two other employees also reported being harassed by Hughes.

Metro took no action against Hughes, but fired Crawford and the two other accusers soon after finishing the investigation.  Metro claimed it fired Crawford for embezzlement.

Crawford filed a lawsuit claiming that she was fired in retaliation for her report about Hughes's behavior in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Title VII's Anti-Retaliation Provisions

Title VII has two provisions which prohibit retaliation in employment discrimination cases and make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of its employees because:

1. he or she "has opposed any practice which is unlawful" under Title VII
   
2. he or she has "made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this subchapter"

These provisions are commonly known as the "opposition clause" and the "participation clause".

The District Court and Sixth Circuit Decisions

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Metro. It held that Crawford did not satisfy the opposition clause because she had not "instigated or initiated any complaint", but had "merely answered questions by investigators in an already-pending investigation, initiated by someone else."

The District Court also concluded that Crawford's claim failed under the participation clause because it held that the only circumstances in which an employee would be protected from retaliation for participation in an employer's internal investigation was where "the investigation occur[ed] pursuant to a pending EEOC charge."

Crawford appealed and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds.

Crawford next filed a petition for certiorari requesting that the United States Supreme Court accept the case. The petition was granted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

C.H. Robinson Loses Another Sexual Harassment Hostile Environment Appeal

I read about this case decided by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week with great interest. In it the Court held quite clearly that a constant flow of profanity in the workplace can constitute sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

After reading it I thought,  "this sounds familiar."  In fact I thought, "I've already written about this case," so I researched my blog and there it was -- an almost identical lawsuit against the same company for the same awful conduct decided in June by  the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and I thought, "doesn't this company ever learn?"

Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is  a long decision -- 27 pages -- and one definitely worth the read. In a nutshell, here's what happened in the case.

The Facts

Ingrid Reeves worked as a sales representative from July 2001 to March 2004 in the Birmingham, Alabama branch of C.H. Robinson.  She worked in a cubicle in an open area with six male co-workers.

During that time, she was subjected to an onslaught of foul and disgusting language at work on a daily basis.  Women were repeatedly referred to as:

• bitch
  

• fucking bitch
  

• fucking whore
  

• crack whore 
  

• cunt

Co-workers also listened to a crude radio show each morning, displayed pornography on a computer, and sang songs about gender-derogatory topics.

Though she complained to her co-workers they persisted in the conduct.  She complained to her branch manager on at least five separate occasions and in two separate work evaluations. She also contacted two C.H. Robinson executives. Nothing changed, and Reeves resigned.

Reeves filed a lawsuit alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What Happened In The Courts

The federal district court granted judgment in favor of C.H. Robinson and threw out the case. Its reasoning was that the offensive conduct was not motivated by sex and not directed at Reeves.

Reeves appealed. A panel of the appellate court reversed the district court's decision holding, among other things, that Reeves presented jury issues as to whether the offensive conduct was based on sex.

That decision was vacated and a rehearing en banc was granted -- meaning that the whole court was going to hear and decide the case.

The Eleventh Circuit Finds For Reeves

The Court started the opinion with some "core principles of employment discrimination law" in hostile work environment cases:

• a plaintiff must show that

1. her employer discriminated because of her membership in a protected group (race, sex, etc.) and that
   
2. the offensive conduct was either severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms or conditions of employment
   

• Title VII is not a civility code, and not all profane or sexual language or conduct will constitute discrimination
  

• workplace conduct can not be viewed in isolation, but but must be viewed cumulatively and in its social context
  

• a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out

Applying these principles, the Court held that sufficient evidence had been presented for a jury to find that Reeves was subjected to a  "discriminatorily abusive working environment."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As Congress ended its last session, a legislative victory for employee rights advocates came with it.

The bill, signed by President Obama at the end of December,  came about because of the horrible story involving Jamie Leigh Jones. Here's one description of what happened as reported in September by  Think Progress:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.”

Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.

The tragedy spurred the bill which became known as both  the "Franken Amendment" and the"Jamie Leigh Jones Amendment" (to the Defense Appropriations Act for 2010) . It's the first federal legislation that prevents employees from forcing binding arbitration on their employees as a forum for resolving employment disputes.

In recent years, many companies have required employees to sign contracts, handbooks, and other documents which require them to go to arbitration to resolve their employment disputes.

When employees sign -- which they are forced to do to either get the job or keep the job -- they give up their right to take claims against their employers to court. Cases involving discrimination and sexual harassment, to name a few, are compelled to go to arbitration instead.

An arbitration is generally held before three arbitrators and is commonly  viewed as a favorable forum for employers versus employees.

Without binding arbitration, employees have the right to take their discrimination cases to court, and with sufficient evidence, in front of a jury. It is this precious right to a jury trial which is at the heart of this issue.

The Franken Amendment prohibits the award of Department of Defense contracts of over one million dollars to any company that forces its employees or independent contractors to submit to pre-dispute binding arbitration of Title VII and sexual assault-related tort claims

Under the bill, defense contractors:

• with over $1 million (which is most) that are funded by 2010 appropriations will not be able to force arbitration of Title VII and sexual assault-related tort claims
  

• will not be able to enter into forced arbitration agreements with their employees or independent contractors or enforce any agreements that have such provisions.

The list of covered sexual assault-related tort claims covers:

any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention

The Franken Amendment will protect hundreds of thousands of employees around the country from being forced to arbitrate their Title VII claims. It also provides persuasive authority for employee advocates to strike down forced arbitration clauses in other federal contracts.

It's also a step forward to getting rid of forced arbitration in other employment settings.

All in all, it's a great victory on a critical issue for employee advocates and we thank Senator Franken for his efforts on behalf of employee rights.

image: bsmith101.files.wordpress.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

EEOC Settlement Shatters Glass Ceiling

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced a whopping 19 million dollar settlement of a class action "glass ceiling" lawsuit against Outback Steakhouse last week.

The lawsuit involved a class of female employees who claimed that they were illegally denied:

• equal opportunity for advancement

• promotional opportunities to high level profit sharing management positions
  

• favorable job assignments, particularly, kitchen management experience, which was required for employees to receive consideration for top restaurant management positions

Stuart J. Ishimaru, EEOC Acting Chairman had this to to say in conjunction with the announcement:

There are still too many glass ceilings left to shatter in the workplaces throughout  corporate America. ...

Hopefully this major settlement will remind employers about the perils of perpetuating promotion practices that keep women from advancing at work.

Let's hope so. It's been almost 30 years since the Wall Street Journal popularized the term "glass ceiling" in an article describing the invisible barriers that women confront as they approach the top of corporate hierarchy.

The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and issued several reports between 1991 and 1996. The last report noted that among Fortune 500 companies:

• 95 -97% of senior managers were men

• 97% of male top executives were white

• 95% of the three to five percent of the top managers who were women were white
  

I don' t know how much better the data would look today but my bet would be that the difference wouldn't be significant.  No doubt  ladies -- after all of these years, we still have a long way to go.

I have talked to hundreds of women through the years who confront these issues at work each day. Many just don't want to rock the boat to fight for the promotions they deserve -- and that's understandable.

That's why cases like this one are so important. Three cheers for the courageous women who brought this class action lawsuit and the EEOC's vigorous pursuit of equal opportunity for women.

 image: pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/feminis_difference_lg.jpg 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When Do Discussions About Sexual Harassment At Work Constitute Reporting Which Requires Investigation?

This case addresses an issue in sexual harassment cases that comes up often in real life experience but is not often the central issue of an opinion from a federal court of appeals.

It has to do with reporting of sexual harassment when a victim talks about the harassment with others at work -- but doesn't file a formal complaint. Does the conversation constitute a complaint which requires an investigation?

The case also addresses discussions at work about sexual harassment where the victim says: "don't tell anyone."  What's an employer to do?

The new case --  Duch v. Jakubek  from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- addresses these common but thorny issues.

Here’s what happened in the case:

The Harassment

Karen Duch was employed as a court officer by the New York Unified Court System and was assigned to the Midtown Community Court “(MDC) in August of 1999.

In May of 2001, Brian Kohn began working at MCA as a court officer along with Duch. Several months later Kohn and Duch had a consensual sexual encounter at Duch’s apartment. The encounter did not involve sexual intercourse.  

Duch told Kohn the next day that she had made a mistake and did not want to pursue any further relations with him.

After the encounter, and until January 2002, Kohn made a series of sexual advances towards Duch and continued to harass her with unwanted physical contact, sexually graphic language, and physical gestures.

In the months that followed Duch became seriously ill with depression. She stopped eating and began avoiding work. She became suicidal and eventually left the job.

The Reporting

Duch told three people about the harassment:

1. Edward Jakubek : The Highest Ranking Court Officer at MCC

In October of 2001, when Duch learned that she was scheduled  to work alone with Kohn on an upcoming Saturday she approached Jakubeck  and asked for the day off. She didn’t tell him why she wanted the change.

Later that day, Jakubek called Duch in her office and told her that he heard she wanted to change her schedule to avoid working with Kohn. He also told her that he had talked to Kohn and asked him directly why Duch didn’t want to work with him.

 Kohn responded to Jakubek by saying, “well, maybe I did something wrong or said something that I should not have.”

Jaubek told Kohn to “cut it out and grow up.” He then asked Duch if she had a problem with Kohn. According to the testimony, Duch became emotional and after gaining her composure said, “I can’t talk about it.”

Jakubek replied, “that’s  good because I don’t want to know what happened,” and then laughed.

Jakubek offered to change Duch’s schedule so she would not have to work alone at night with  Kohn, and thereafter did not schedule her to work alone with him.

2. Rosemary Christiano: The EEO Liaison

Later in October 2001, Duch told Christiano about Kohn’s harassment. When asked “are you speaking to me as a friend or as an EEO Liaison, Duch responded “I think I am telling you as a friend”.  

When Chritsiano asked Duch whether she wanted her to report Kohn’s behavior, Duch said “absolutely not.” Christiano did not report the harassment to anyone.                                                                                                  

3.  David Joseph: Chrisitano’s Replacement As EEO Liaison

In December of 2001, David Joseph replaced Christiano as the EEO Liaison. Within days, Duch informed him that she wanted to file a formal complaint about Kohn’s conduct. 

An investigation was conducted, and disciplinary charges were brought against Kohn. Duch refused to be cross-examined claiming that she was medically unfit to testify.

All charges were eventually dropped against Kohn. Duch stopped working at the court in 2002 and filed a lawsuit in 2004.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employee Terminated Because Of Bankruptcy Gets Right To Trial In Federal Court

I must admit that I don’t ever remember seeing a case involving bankruptcy discrimination --- so when I ran across a recent federal court case out of Florida on the subject, it struck me as one well worth talking about.

The case,  Myers v. TooJay's Management Corporation, is important because there are so few cases on the topic and because bankruptcy affects so many people. The case also highlights some flaws in the statute which could really use a Congressional fix.

 What Happened In The Case

Plaintiff Eric Myers filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January of 2008. Around the same time, Myers moved his family to Florida to live with his parents. His debts were fully discharged in May of 2008.

At some point, Myers heard about an opening at one of Defendant TooJay’s restaurants in Sumter County, Florida for a management position.  He called the company contact, Tom Thornton, about the position. Thornton interviewed Myers and the interview went well.

Myers was then scheduled for a two day on the job evaluation which was held at on July 31st and August 1st. During those two days, for which he was paid,  Myers shadowed various employees.became familiar with restaurant procedures.

At the end of the second day, Thornton told Myers that he had performed well and according to Myers, offered him a job.  He was told that he was supposed to start work on August 18, 2008 at a salary of between $50,000 and $55,000 for a 40 hour week.

Thornton contended that he never told Myers he was officially hired, never discussed hours, salary, or a start date.

Thornton contended  he told Myers that any offer of employment was contingent on a background check.

There was no dispute that Thornton photocopied Myers' drivers license and social security card and had Myers complete and sign several employment forms including :

• an IRS withholding W-4 form

• an order form for TooJay’s uniform and shoes

• a food employee reporting agreement

• an assistant manger trade secret non-disclosure agreement

• an I-9 employment eligibility verification form.

Thornton also gave Myers a copy of TooJay’s employee handbook and sexual harassment policy, and directed Myers to sign forms indicating that he received copies. On each form, Myers signed in the blank listed for “employee signature.”

Myers was also asked to sign a document which permitted TooJay to conduct a background check and consumer credit report check.

After that, Myers notified his then employer that he was resigning so that he could start at TooJay’s.

A little more than a week later, Myers received a letter from TooJay’s stating that it was rescinding its previous offer of employment because of the credit report. He called the Vice President of Human Resources and was told that he was not hired because he had filed for bankruptcy and that TooJay’s, as a matter of corporate policy, did not hire individuals who had a bankruptcy on their credit report.

Myers went back to his prior employer and asked for his job back but it was too late. His work hours had already been distributed to other employees, and he was told that he could only be rehired at a reduced schedule.

According to Myers no one told him that his employment at TooJay’s was contingent on a satisfactory credit report.

Myers filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Florida claiming bankruptcy discrimination in violation of 11 U.S.C s. 525(b).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Female Pharmacist Wins Appeal Including Punitive Damages and Huge Front Pay Award

It’s one thing to prove discrimination. It’s an altogether different thing to prove damages which occurred as a result of it.

In the recently published gender discrimination case of Haddad v Wal-Mart Stores Inc,*, the  Supreme Court Court ("SJC") of Massachusetts affirmed a jury verdict which included $733,000 for 19 years of front pay (future economic loss) and $1 million dollars in punitive damages – and that’s big news.

What Happened In The Case

Cynthia Haddad worked as a pharmacist at Wal-Mart for ten years (seven of those in the Pittsfield, Massachusetts store) mostly as a staff pharmacist..Throughout her time at Wal-Mart, she received excellent evaluations.  

Towards the end of her employment, Haddad accepted the position of pharmacy manager.

During that time, she received less pay than any male pharmacy manager which she consistently complained about.

On April 14^th, 2004, Haddad was questioned by three Wal-Mart managers about abut two fraudulent prescriptions.

One of the prescriptions was written in 2002 while Haddad was on duty, and another was written in 2004 while a male pharmacist was on duty.

Haddad told the managers that she did not know anything about the fraudulent prescriptions.

She did admit that the 2002 fraudulent prescription could have been written when she briefly left the pharmacy area to buy a soda at a nearby counter, or when she was in the restroom, eating lunch, or talking to customers.

Haddad’s employment was terminated that same day.

She was told that the reason for her termination was based on her statement during the interview that she failed to secure the pharmacy and left Baran (the technician) unattended in the pharmacy area. Baran, who admitted that she falsified the prescription,was also terminated.

The other pharmacist involved -- Richard Blackbird -- was on duty the day the fraudulent 2004 prescription was written. That prescription contained his initials.

In a clear case of unequal treatment, neither Blackbird, nor any other pharmacist was questioned about or disciplined for the 2004 fraudulent prescription.

In stark contract to the treatment Haddad received,  Blackbird was appointed to be pharmacy manager at the time of Haddad's departure.

In addition, Blackbird testified that he commonly left the pharmacy area unsecured to talk to a customer, go the restroom, or get a snack – and that he was unaware of any policy prohibiting this practice.

Haddad filed a lawsuit alleging unequal compensation and termination of employment in violation of Massachusetts laws against discrimination. ( M.G.L. c. 151B, s.4) The complaint also stated a claim for defamation.

The jury found in Haddad’s favor and awarded $922,774 in compensatory damages which included:

• $17,700 in special damages
  

• $125,000 for emotional distress
  

• $95,000 in back pay
  

• $733,000 in front pay

The jury also awarded $1 million dollars in punitive damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judgment For Employee Due To Employer's Failure To Accommodate  

I don’t remember ever reading a case quite like this one. The facts are quite graphic so be prepared. The story revolves around an incident of a store’s failure to accommodate a disability which led to a tragic result.

What Happened In The Case

A woman identified only as A.M. came to America in 1981 from El Salvidor after civil war broke out. She started working at Albertsons in 1987. She worked in various jobs, but at the time of the incident giving rise to the case, she was working as a checker. 

In 2003, A.M. underwent chemotherapy and radiation for cancer of the tonsils and larynx. The treatment affected her salivary glands which caused her to drink large volumes of water and urinate repeatedly.

While at work, A.M. was required to have water with her at all times and needed to go to the bathroom frequently -- sometimes as often as every 45 minutes.

Most managers accommodated her but on the evening of February 11, 2005, A.M. encountered a horrific problem.

She worked a shift that day which began at 1:00 p.m. and was scheduled to end at 10:00 p.m.

By 7:00 p.m. there were only three employees in the store – A.M. who was working as checker, another woman who acted as courtesy clerk (and was not allowed to relieve a checker), and Kellie Sampson – the person in charge.

At 8:00 that evening, A.M. told Sampson that she needed take a break. Sampson asked A.M. to wait because a delivery truck was coming

Some time later, A.M., who had a line of customers waiting to check out, called  Sampson and told her again that she needed to go to the bathroom. Sampson told her that she was unloading the merchandise and that she had to wait.

About 10 minutes later, A.M. still had customers in the line. She called Sampson once more and told her that she really had to go. Sampson said that she was busy and unable to come to the front of the store.

Unable to control herself, A.M. urinated while standing at the checkout stand. She was having her menstrual cycle, and so she was drenched with both urine and blood.

Understandably, A.M. was shaky and humiliated though she did not think the customers saw what happened. When Sampson finally got to the front of the store, A.M. went into the bathroom to clean herself.

Sobbing, she called her husband to tell him what happened. A customer observed her crying, asked what was wrong, and A.M. explained that she had wet herself because no one let her go to the bathroom.

The customer helped her to her car. She had a horrible drive home and thought about killing herself.

When she got home, still nervous and crying, she took a long shower and tried to scrub the smell off her. She wouldn’t get out of the shower and her husband had to remove her.

After that, she was unable to return to work and began to deteriorate psychologically. She became listless and withdrawn. She refused to see family and friends. She feared that people would be able to smell the bad odor she sensed about herself.

She had crazy dreams and couldn’t sleep. Each day, she took multiple showers to try and remove bad smells from her body. She shaved off all of her body hair, hoping that the bad smell would go away.

Eventually A.M. told a doctor that had thoughts about killing herself. She was committed to a psychiatric hospital for several days.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sex Discrimination Against Men Violates Title VII

It’s not often that you see cases involving discrimination against men, but in the last few weeks the EEOC has reported two noteworthy settlements.

The Sex Discrimination Case Against Lawry’s

In early November, the EEOC announced a $1,025,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit against Lawry’s Restaurants Inc., which operates steak houses in Las Vegas, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and Corona del Mar, California. 

In the lawsuit, the EEOC charged Lawry’s with maintaining a longstanding company wide policy of hiring only women for server positions.

The policy, which has been in place since 1938, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination because of sex.

Lawry’s claimed that the policy was based on long standing tradition. The EEOC found that the policy adversely affected a class of men on the basis of sex.

The parties reached an agreement to settle the case in early November. Under the consent decree Lawry’s agreed to:

• change its practice and actively promote the hiring of men into server positions
  

• provide monetary relief including a class fund of $500,000
  

• pay over $300,000 to initiate an advertising campaign regarding the hiring of food servers
  

• pay $225,000 for training its employees on compliance with Title VII and related laws
  

• take additional steps to insure compliance with Title VII and the decree

In its announcement of the settlement, Olophious E. Perry, who managed the EEOC investigation said:

The EEOC will never condone discrimination in the name of so-called tradition. Every individual deserves a fair chance to obtain a job based on their talent and qualifications, regardless of gender.

It seems to me that there are lots of restaurants out there that still have male only, or female only servers. This case makes it clear that this is one "tradition" that has seen its day.

Cheesecake Factory Settles Case Of Male On Male Sexual Harassment 

The EEOC announced this week that Cheesecake Factory, Inc, a nationwide restaurant chain, will  pay $345,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit involving six male employees who were subjected to repeated sexual harassment at the company’s Chandler Mall location outside of Phoenix.

The complaint charged that the restaurant knew about and tolerated repeated sexual assaults against six male employees by a group of kitchen staffers.

The evidence included abuse involving the harassers:

• directly touching the victims’ genitals
  

• making sexually charged remarks
  

• grinding their genitals against them
  

• forcing victims into repeated episodes of simulated rape

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks