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

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

Between a busy trial schedule and the other distractions of summer, we have been a little delinquent in keeping you up to date during the past couple of weeks.  We apologize for the inactivity on the blog, as there have been many developments in the employment law world since our last posting at the end of June.   The following is a brief summary of four of the more interesting and important current events:

1.  Ricci v. DeStefano. 

The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 29.   This is a significant case dealing with the sensitive and controversial issue of reverse discrimination.   The case is notable not only for the subject matter, but because Sonia Sotomayor, whose Senate confirmation hearings are now underway, was one of the judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who decided the case below.  

The case was about firefighers in New Haven, Connecticut who applied to be on the promotion list for captain and lieutenant positions.   A candidate's rank on the list was determined by process that included written and oral exams.    After the testing process, only white and Hispanic candidates qualified for a promotion to captain, and only white candidates for lieutenant.   The City's Civil Service Board refused to certify the test results because it would result in no black candidates being eligible for promotion. 

The Ricci case presents a clash between two types of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact.  Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination based upon race or some other legally protected classification.  Disparate impact, on the other hand, is not necessarily intentional discrimination, but occurs when job criteria that are neutral on their face have an adverse impact on certain groups.   In this case, the black firefighters contended the testing process was discriminatory because it resulted in no black candidates qualifying for the promotions list.     The City's defense in the lawsuit brought by the white firefighters was that it could not certify the list because if it did, it would be subject to disparate impact liability.   In other words, the City did not believe it could promote only white candidates because it would be sued by the non-white candidates who did not qualify for promotion.

The Supreme Court held it was unlawful for the City to refuse to certify the results of the promotional exam based solely upon the relative racial make-up of the candidates who qualified versus those who did not qualify.  The Court sympathzed with the City's position that it would be liable for disparate impact discrimination if the test results had been certified.  However, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that, at least in this case, such concerns did not justify denying promotions to candiates who had the highest scores because no black candidates were in that group.   

Is is ever permissible to make an employment decision based upon an employee's race because of the fear of disparate impact liability to persons of another race?  The Court concluded such a decision would be permissible only if there is a  "strong basis in evidence" it would be subject to disparate impact liability.  In the Ricci case, the Court concluded, the evidence showed the City had taken great care to ensure its testing process was free from discriminatory impact and reasonably related to the jobs for which it tested.  Therefore, there was insufficient basis for the City to conclude its tests had an unlawful disparate impact.

For detailed discussion, analysis, and contrasting arguments on the Ricci case, I recommend the following posts:  First, for a local flavor, Connecticut Employment Law Blog provides a good summary of the lessons to be learned from the case.   Employee rights attorney Ellen Simon opines at Employee Rights Post that the Ricci decision was not only wrongly decided, but is bad for both employers and employees.  Finally, for an analysis without the rhetoric, try SCOTUSblog.

2.   Employers and Social Networking

Facebook, Linked In, and other social networking sites have exploded in popularity in recent years.  Are employers entitled to make employment decisions based upon information an employee posts on the internet outside of work time?  Should an employer allow or even encourage employees to use the social networking on the internet? 

For a detailed analysis of some of the issues surrounding social networking, I recommend the following:

• In "The Voice", a weekly publication of the Defense Research Institute, attorney Helen Adams writes about the employment implications of "Doocing", a new slang word to describe terminations based upon an employee's activities on the internet. 
• The Delaware Employment Law Blog discusses reasons employers should have a policy covering social networking sites.   
•   The National Law Journal reports that some management side lawyers have warned about the use of Linked In to make recommendations of employees, for fear it will be used against the employee in the event  of a termination.
• Locally, The Des Moines Register reported on the case of a police officer who was asked to resign because of photographs she posted on Myspace. 

Suffice it to say that social networking is not going away any time soon, and employers would be well advised to develop practices and policies for dealing with its impact on the workplace. 

3.  Al Franken Certified as the Winner of the Senate Race in Minnesota

This is imporant because Mr. Franken becomes the 60th Democratic Senator, giving the party a filibuster proof majority.   The Senate thus constituted is in a better position to pass EFCA, or the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act."  EFCA would have a substantial impact on labor law in the United States and present many challenges for employers.  I recommend the the blog at Laborpains.org to keep track of the latest developments on EFCA and other labor union matters.

4.  WARN Act

The WSJ Law Blog notes that litigation relating to layoffs is heating up, particularly under the heretofore seldom utilized WARN Act.  WARN requires employers under certain circumstances to provide at least 60 days notice of plant shutdowns or significant layoffs.   A violation means the employer has to pay wages to the laid off employees for the sixty period, plus other potential penalties.   However, the fact that the downturn occurred so swiftly and is protracted  may provide a defense to a WARN Act claims.

Stay Cool!

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

Much ink has been spilled over the last week analyzing the background and record of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court.    Given that the Supreme Court's docket has included a large number of employment related cases in recent years, a record which is likely to continue given the many changes to the federal employment laws under the Obama administration, how will a Justice Sotomayor potentially affect the jurisprudence in this area?

Judge Sotomayor has served as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since 1998, and before that was a U.S. District Court judge in New York.   In one of her most notable cases as a trial court judge, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction which prevented the Major League Baseball owners from using replacement players during the 1995 season.   

More recently, Judge Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel of the Second Circuit that issued a controversial opinion in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano ,a case which ultimately was appealed to the U.S Supreme Court.    Ricci involves a claim of reverse discrimination by a group of firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, seventeen of whom are white and one who is Hispanic.    Based upon the results of written and oral promotional exams, only white and Hispanic candidates qualified for promotion to the position of Captain, and only white candidates qualified for promotion to Lieutenant.   Because no black candidate had a high enough score to be considered for the available captain and lieutenant positions, the City's Civil Service Board refused to certify the results of the exam, which prevented the promotions from occurring.  The trial court found that the City's refusal to allow the promotions did not constitute race discrimination, and granted summary judgment to the City (a thorough discussion of the decision is reported at Connecticut Employment Law Blog). 

The three judge panel on which Judge Sotomayor sat issued a short opinion affirming the trial court, but did not analyze any of the substantive issues.    Notably, another judge on the Second Circuit was critical of the panel for failing to address the important constitutional claims at issue in the case, stating that "this perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."    At least one critic has opined that Judge Sotomayor's apparent refusal to weigh in on this important issue of civil rights law does not make her a jurist worthy of serious consideration for the Supreme Court. 

Judge Sotomayor certainly has a compelling personal story, and she may have empathy, but it remains to be seen whether she will make positive contributions to the development of employment law.   Stay tuned.

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