Iowa Employment Law Blog : Iowa Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Patrick Smith : Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave Law Firm : Des Moines, Central IA Discrimination & Labor Law

The biggest news this week is the EEOC's release of the proposed regulations for the ADA Amendments Act of 2009.   This post from Jackson Lewis provides some of the highlights.   Note that these are proposed regulations.  There is a 60 day period during which the EEOC will receive comments.  After considering the comments, the EEOC will publish the final regulations and the date the regulations will become effective.   Stay tuned for more information and analysis.

Pop quiz: how many new federal employment laws have been passed by the 111th Congress in 2009 and signed into the law by the President?  Answer: one (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed into law January 29, 2009). 

With all the buzz in the employment law community about the anticipated changes in 2009, some may be surprised by that answer. Employers should not rest on their laurels, however, because there are plenty of bills in the pipeline.   In this post, Dennis Westlind of World of Work blog identifies thirteen employment related bills that were introduced in 2009 and remain pending, including the Employee Free Choice Act (permitting union recognition by "card check", among other things;  Employment Non-Discrimination Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity); Paid Vacation Act (mandating employers with 50 or more employees to provide paid vacation), and Paycheck Fairness Act (providing for "enhanced enforcement" of equal pay requirements between male and female employees).

Unpaid internships illegal?  In this post, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban rails against the Federal Wage and Hour Regulations that make the traditional "foot in the door" experience unlawful.  

Is there a looming crisis with wage and hour litigation?  Dan Schwartz at Connecticut Employment Law Blog and Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog show that, despite the buzz about wage and hour suits, the actual number of federal labor cases filed in their jurisdictions has remained steady.    The real concern is that many of these cases are collective actions, which can result in substantial monetary liability.   In May 2009, local convenience store chain Casey's General Stores paid over $11 million to settle two wage and hour collective actions filed by 7,600 former management level employees and 76,000 non-management employees.

Finally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal government has the right to read even the personal e-mail of its employees.    Notes one commenter on the ABA Journal site: "At least somebody is reading the emails I send to federal government employees…."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent decision from the Eighth Circuit provides good training material about what "not to do" if you want to your company to avoid being liable for discrimination, and possibly punitive damages.

The EEOC filed suit against Siouxland Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, a medical clinic in Sioux Falls South Dakota.   The complaint alleged that Siouxland terminated one employee and refused to hire another because of their pregnancy.  

The first employee, Richelle Dooley, had worked for the clinic for two days when she was terminated.   She told the office manager she was pregnant at the time she was filling out health benefit forms.   The next day during a meeting with the business manager, the managing partner was informed about Dooley's pregnancy.   He reportedly responded as follows:

"the young lady we just hired is going to have a baby this summer, she isn't going to be available to work.  It doesn't make any sense to begin training her...when she won't be able to work the summer.... [W] are going to have to let her go."

The business manager and another physician in the clinic apparently told the managing partner they could not terminate Dooley because of her pregnancy.  Nonetheless, she was fired.

When Dooley asked the business manager why she had been fired after only her second day on the job, she says she was told:

"your baby is going to be due during the busy season";  the clinic "never would have hired [you] if they had known [you were] pregnant." 

A few months later, the office was seeking an employee to work in central sterilization and post-operative recovery.   Angie Gacke applied for the job.  The following is reported to have occurred in the job interview:

Applicant:  "I don't know if this is a problem or not, but I do want to let you know that I am four months pregnant."

Interviewer: "yes, it's a problem.  You are just going to end up causing more work for everybody else than you will be helping them."   

Applicant:  "my due date is in August"

Interviewer: "that's the middle of our busy season, and we don't grant any vacation or anything to anybody during the busy season."

The clinic's defense to Gacke's failure to hire claim was that she was overqualified.   The interviewer had written the following on a copy of her resume:

"overqualified for job", she "needed insurance", and she was "4 months pregnant!"

Based upon this evidence, the jury found Siouxland had discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their pregnancy.  However, the trial court refused to instruct the jury about punitive damages.    On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found there was evidence managerial employees engaged in discrimination while knowing that such discrimination was prohibited by federal law.  The Appellate Court held it was error to grant Siouxland judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages claims, and remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of punitive damages.

Enough said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This week we are trying out a new feature on our Blog.  A weekly round-up of important, interesting, practical, or funny employment law information and news posted in blogs or otherwise on the world wide web during the past week.  Please contact us with any information or feedback.  Here we go for the first edition:

The Des Moines Register reports that key information was withheld from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission in connection with its investigation of racial bias by Iowa Workforce Development.    The investigation is part of a class action lawsuit alleging the Agency engaged in a pattern of failing to hire black applicants over a number of year.

New ADA Regulations coming soon.   The Washington Labor & Employment Wire notes that the EEOC voted to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule making.  Once the proposed regulations are published, there is a 60 day period for comments from the public.   The EEOC press release on the subject is here.    The EEOC has also published a Q&A document concerning the proposed rule making.

 EFCA Report discusses the many high profile politicians that have addressed the AFL-CIO constitutional convention this week.  Senator Specter (D-Pa) discussed a revised EFCA that would eliminate the controversial "card-check" feature of the bill.  However, the revised EFCA would still contain the binding arbitration provision and enhanced penalties for unfair labor practices that business interests strongly oppose.   In addition, while it eliminated card check, the proposed compromise bill shortens dramatically the time period between a petition for election and the actual election, thus reducing the time an employer would have to mount a campaign opposing the union.

Most sexual harassment cases involve female employees complaining about males, but occasionally it is the other way around.  The EEOC announced it is pursuing claims against a South Carolina Time Share resort because of alleged sexual harassment by a female supervisor of a male subordinate.  

For another example of the impact of internet social media on workplace litigation, see this post at the Delaware Employment Law Blog.

Ross Runkel's LawMemo Employment Law Blog contains a link to a 79 page report issued by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concerning what changes to expect the Obama NLRB. 

Finally, in light of the recent  public outbursts, tantrums, or otherwise offensive remarks Serena Williams, Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), rapper Kayne West, and other public figures, Work Matters Blog contains a thoughtful post about the art of the apology and how it can contribute to more civil behavior both in and out of the workplace. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post in HR Observations (Hat tip: Ohio Employer's Law Blog) explores whether obesity could be the next characteristic to become protected under the anti-discrimination laws.   A group called the "Obesity Action Coalition" complains that discrimination against obese people is widespread.  Employer concern about rising costs associated with employee health coverage, workers' compensation costs,  and an emphasis on employee wellness may also contribute to the perception among the overweight that they have been marginalized in the workplace.

Although obesity is not officially a protected class under the federal discrimination laws or Iowa Civil Rights Act, employers are wise to be alert to weight related conditions that might lead to discrimination claims.   Health problems associated with obesity may protect an employee under the recent amendments to the ADA.   To the extent that gender or age contribute to weight related health conditions, policies or practices that favor fit and healthy employees may adversely impact one gender or age group more than others.   Even an employer wellness program designed to combat obesity could potentially discriminate against those who do not benefit from it.    It remains to be seen whether the EEOC will address obesity in the revised ADA regulations, and whether the Courts are open to expansive interpretations that will, in effect, result in weight becoming a new protected class.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a ruling issued September 3, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that an employer that follows an affirmative action plan in making an employment decision can be guilty of unlawful race discrimination.    The Court's decision in Humphries v. Pulaski County Special School District is the first in the Eighth Circuit to address the hot button issue of reverse discrimination since the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the subject in Ricci v. DeStefano last June (See post here for discussion of the Ricci case).

The plaintiff in Humphries was a white female with a doctorate degree in elementary education.  She worked as a school counselor in the Pulaski County (Arkansas) School District for nearly twenty years.  Starting in 2001, Ms. Humphries applied for virtually every assistant principal position that came open in the District, but was never selected.   She claimed she was passed over for the positions because of her race; specifically, she alleged the District had a policy of ensuring that at least one assistant principal in each school is a different race than the school's principal.   The plaintiff also argued she was not hired as an assistant principal because the School District's affirmative action plan unlawfully favored black candidates. 

The trial court granted summary judgment to the School District, finding that the plaintiff failed to present direct evidence of race discrimination.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that, an employer's adherence to an affirmative action policy may constitute evidence of unlawful race discrimination.   If the employer defends a hiring decision on the basis that it followed an affirmative action plan, then the question becomes whether the affirmative action plan is valid in the first place under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.   

The Humphries decision is an important reminder that employers should periodically revisit their affirmative action and diversity policies to ensure the policies comply with the requirements of Title VII.  Even if  plan was valid when it was put into place, does not mean it remains so today.   Some important factors to consider include the following:

1) A lawful affirmative action plan must be both remedial in purpose and narrowly tailored to meet the remedial goal.  Remedial purpose means that its purpose is  to cure a racial imbalance that exists in the organization because of past discrimination.    A "narrowly tailored" plan is one that purports to accomplish the remedial purpose without unnecessarily trammeling the rights of non-minorities. 

2) Practices the employer has implemented to comply with an affirmative action plan should actually relate to the goals of the plan.  For example, if the plan calls for the employer to take steps to attain a racially diverse applicant pool, a practice that sets hiring goals or requires certain racial balance among the workforce may not be consistent with the plan.

3) Many organizations do not have a a formal affirmative action plan, but do have policies concerning diversity in the workplace.   An employer should evaluate whether the diversity goals are merely aspirational, or are actually relied upon in making employment decisions.   If achieving or maintaining diversity in the workforce is a reason for a particular employment decision, it may constitute evidence of race discrimination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week the Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling in a pregnancy discrimination case that decided three issues significant to employers and employment litigators.  

The first issue in DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc. involved whether an employee must actually be pregnant at the time of a termination to be protected by the Iowa Civil Rights Act's prohibition against pregnancy discrimination.   The Plaintiff in DeBoom was terminated one week after returning from maternity leave, allegedly because of poor performance.  The Iowa Supreme Court held in a case of first impression that the ICRA's express protection of employees disabled by pregnancy extends to women "affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and other related conditions."  This includes women who have recently returned to the workplace after maternity leave.  In so ruling,  the Court followed the interpretation by many courts of the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), even though the language of the ICRA is different than that of the PDA.  The Court reasoned that such a broad interpretation was "necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute." 

The crucial issue, therefore, is not whether the employee is pregnant at the time of the termination, but whether the employer was motivated by the fact of her pregnancy.  Interestingly, however, the Court cautioned that if the employer's reason for terminating plaintiff was because she decided after returning from leave to prioritize family over work, it would not constitute discrimination because of pregnancy under the ICRA.  According to the Court, "such a decision can be made by men as well as women and, therefore, is not based on the unique capacity of women to bear children so as to fall within the scope of Iowa's statute."   This is a notable distinction, especially given the fact that, under federal law, discrimination against caregivers is sometimes viewed as discrimination on the basis of sex.   (See this post for discussion of caregiver discrimination).  Employers should not interpret this cautionary note as giving them a free reign to take adverse action against new mothers returning from leave.

The second significant issue in DeBoom was whether a plaintiff is entitled to a "pretext" instruction under the ICRA.  Such an instruction tells the jury they may find that unlawful discrimination occurred if the plaintiff proves the employer's stated reason for the adverse action was not the real reason, but merely a pretext to hide discrimination.    The Court held that a pretext instruction "is required where, as here, a rational finder of fact could reasonably find the defendant's explanation false and could infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose."

While the employer's proffered reason for an adverse action is always an important issue in employment litigation, this ruling makes it more likely courts will submit these claims to the jury, even if there is little evidence of discriminatory intent beyond the supposedly false reason.  

The third important ruling in DeBoom concerns whether the jury must find that the employer's unlawful reason was "a motivating factor" in the employment decision, or "a determining factor".   While on the surface these two terms are very similar, the key is how they are defined under Iowa law.    In cases where an employee alleges wrongful discharge against public policy, the Iowa Supreme Court requires that the wrongful reason be a "determining" factor in the discharge.    A "determining" factor is a reason that tips the scales decisively one way or the other.  However, most federal courts use the term "motivating" factor in discrimination claims, which is generally defined to mean the unlawful reason played a part in the decision, but was not necessarily the only reason.    The Iowa Supreme Court ruled that "motivating" factor is the correct standard by which to instruct the jury.  

One potential side effect of the Court's ruling on the "motivating" versus "determining" factor issue is that it will encourage age discrimination plaintiffs to file in State court under the ICRA, and avoid asserting a claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  Because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services (discussed in a previous post here), claims under the ADEA will no longer instruct on "a motivating factor".   Under the ADEA after Gross, plaintiffs must prove age was the determining factor in the adverse action, not merely a motivating factor.

The jury in DeBoom ruled in favor of the employer, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial based upon the faulty jury instructions.   It will be interesting to see if the new instructions change the result when the case is tried again.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link