Category: Risk Management

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., Managing Member, Seltzer, Chadwick, Soefje & Ladik, PLLC.

On Monday, April 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear, during the 2019-2020 term, three cases alleging sex discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). These three cases provide the Court an opportunity to  decide whether Title VII’s bar against sex discrimination extends to discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity.

Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc.

On February 26, 2018, the Second Circuit ruled en banc that Title VII bars discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court opined: “… the most natural reading of the statute’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” is that it extends to sexual orientation discrimination because sex is necessarily a factor in sexual orientation.”

Bostock v. Clayton County Board of Commissioners 

On May 10, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit reached a different conclusion as to whether Title VII bars discrimination based upon sexual orientation.  In doing so, the Court followed 1979 precedent from the 11th Circuit holding that “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.

On March 7, 2018, the Sixth Circuit ruled that “[d]iscrimination on the basis of  transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex …”  The Court clarified that “discrimination against transgender persons necessarily implicates Title VII’s proscriptions against sex stereotyping.”

Takeaways for Employers

As observed in a March 2018 post on this blog, a new wave of lawsuits alleging LGBTQ discrimination in employment had begun long before the Zarda ruling on February 26, 2018. Even in circuits which, as the Eleventh Circuit, have rejected the application of Title VII to LGBTQ claims, the chance that the Supreme Court may overturn such precedent has provided hope that such suits can ultimately prove successful.

To be sure, the Supreme Court may ultimately decide that Congressional, not judicial, action is needed to expand the scope of Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Such a decision, however, may not come until 2020. In the meantime, employers must manage the risk of LGBTQ lawsuits even in states which do not have state or local laws barring such discrimination.

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., Managing Member, Seltzer, Chadwick, Soefje & Ladik, PLLC.

According to FBI statistics, hate crimes rose 17% in the U.S. in 2017. Amongst the motivations for hate crimes tracked by the FBI are “race/ethnicity/ancestry bias”, “religious bias”, “sexual orientation bias”, “disability bias” and “gender bias.” 

The FBI does not similarly document the number of false allegations of hate crimes. Recent events, however, have shown that hate hoaxes are real.

On January 29, 2019, actor Jussie Smollett, who is black and gay, claimed to have been attacked in Chicago by two masked men. According to Smollett, the two men yelled racist and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck, physically assaulted him and poured a substance over him. The media, politicians and entertainers were quick to condemn the incident as a hate crime.

Paradoxically, what started as a police investigation of a hate crime, quickly became an investigation of a hate hoax. On February 20, 2019, Smollett was formally charged with filing a false police report.

In 2017, the Jackson, Michigan home of Nikki Joly, a prominent member of the local LGBTQ community, was burned to the ground. The FBI initially regarded the incident as a hate crime. A Jackson newspaper named Joly its 2018 Citizen of the Year. After a lengthy investigation, Joly was surprisingly charged in 2018 with first degree arson in burning his own home.

Just as in society as a whole, hateful conduct continues to be an unfortunate reality in the workplace. Indeed, most employers understand their legal obligations to take reasonable measures to prevent such conduct and to take prompt remedial action in response to such conduct. Recent hate hoaxes nevertheless underscore three important lessons in exercising these legal obligations.

Lesson 1: Take All Allegations of Hateful Conduct Seriously

The possibility of a hate hoax does not diminish an employer’s obligations to be vigilant in remediating hateful conduct in the workplace. This duty requires that all explanations be considered, including the explanation that the allegation is truthful.  

A hate hoax thus cannot be the first and certainly not the only explanation embraced by an employer for alleged hateful conduct. The risk of precipitously embracing such an explanation is that it may ultimately prove to be wrong. Any action subsequently taken against the accuser could then result in a discrimination claim. Even worse, the accused may only be emboldened to engage in other misconduct in the future.

Lesson 2:  Look Beyond Mere Appearances

The possibility of a hate hoax does underscore the importance of a thorough investigation of alleged hateful conduct. This duty requires that all explanations be considered, including the explanation that the allegation is untruthful.  

What may appear at first to be a clear case of misconduct by the accused may through further investigation be revealed to be a case of misconduct by the accuser. The risk of a rush to judgment is that the accused may be wrongfully punished, and the accuser may be wrongfully rewarded. Any action taken against the accused could then be the basis of a reverse discrimination claim against the employer. Having been successful in one hoax, the accuser may also be encouraged to undertake other hoaxes in the future.

Lesson 3: Be Objective

The possibility of a claim by the accused or accuser does mandate an objective response by an employer to allegations of hateful conduct. Even as to conflicting accounts, such a claim can simply be based upon alleged favoritism in the employer’s response.

For some employers, such alleged favoritism may lean toward the conclusion of a hoax.   The alleged reasons for such favoritism can include (1) the prospect of punishing or losing the accused employee, especially if he or she is a productive employee, (2) the fear of finding evidence of its own culpability in failing to prevent the misconduct, or (3) previous performance or conduct issues of the accuser employee.

For other employers, such alleged favoritism may lean toward the conclusion that hateful conduct occurred. The alleged reasons for such favoritism can include (1) fear of suit by the accuser, (2) fear of backlash by the accuser’s community, (3) empathy for the accuser’s status, or (4) past discriminatory behavior by the employer.

In responding to allegations of hateful conduct, employer must thus avoid even the appearance that the process is being influenced by favoritism in either direction. The risk of not heeding this advice is a costly discrimination or reverse discrimination claim.

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr, Managing Member, Seltzer Chadwick Soefje & Ladik, PLLC.

For more than thirty years, sexual harassment has been a recognized form of discrimination prohibited by federal and state employment discrimination laws. Prudent employers have thus long recognized written policies and training to be essential risk management tools for combating sexual harassment in the workplace.

Recently, the effectiveness of employer policies and training has come into question. A June 2016 Report of the EEOC Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace noted: “Much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool—it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability.”

Although the June 2016 EEOC Report set forth only recommendations for effective sexual harassment training, some state legislatures have gone further.  On April 12, 2018, New York joined California, Connecticut, and Maine in prescribing sexual harassment prevention measures which must be undertaken by private employers.

These state prescriptions include not only the content and form of harassment policies, but also the content, form, timing, frequency, length, trainer qualifications, and proof of attendance requirements of harassment training. Although much of the prescribed content can be used in any state, some of the prescribed content is state-specific.

New York

The New York legislation, for instance, requires the adoption by the New York State Division of Human Rights (“DHR”) of a model prevention policy. The model policy must meet certain minimum standards, which include references to “state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment” and state “forums for adjudicating sexual harassment complaints administratively and judicially.” Employers must either adopt the model policy or establish a policy that equals or exceeds the minimum standards of the model policy.

The legislation also mandates the production by the DHR of a model prevention training program. The model program must be interactive and include references to “state statutory provisions concerning sexual harassment”, and available state forums for adjudicating complaints. Employers must either adopt the model program or establish a program that equal or exceeds the minimum standards of the model program. Under either option, training must be provided annually.

New York’s new law is effective October 9, 2018.

California

Since 2004, California has required that employers with 50 or more employees provide detailed sexual harassment training for supervisors. Such training must be provided within six months of hire and on a biennial basis. The training must be provided in a classroom setting, through interactive learning, or through a live webinar, and must be at least two hours in length. Only attorneys, human resources professionals, harassment prevention consultants and professors or instructors with specific credentials can provide training.

Amongst the prescribed content of training are the definition of “sexual harassment” under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”), and “FEHA … statutory provisions and case law principles concerning the prohibition against and the prevention of unlawful sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation in employment.”

Since 2016, California regulations state that a covered employer in California must have a harassment, discrimination and retaliation policy meeting several minimum requirements. Among these requirements are the protections afforded to employees by FEHA.  Under California regulations, employers also have a continuing obligation to distribute to employees the brochure regarding sexual harassment published by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Pending Legislation

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, state-specific measures are likely only to gain steam.  In California, bills have been introduced to extend mandated training to smaller employers and non-supervisory employees. Existing bills in Connecticut seek to update that state’s existing mandates.  A bill to require harassment training has also been introduced in Delaware.  

The Emerging Reality for Multi-State Employers

Most multi-state employers already have a national strategy for preventing and redressing sexual harassment. Multi-state employers with workers in California have  long recognized the importance of also having a California strategy for managing the risks associated with sexual harassment in that state.

The New York legislation, and the pending legislation in other states, highlight an emerging reality for multi-state employers. The number of states requiring state-specific risk management strategies as to sexual harassment is growing.  For multi-state employers with workers in New York this emerging reality already has a due date – October 9, 2018.

The Winter 2018 Edition of Professional Liability Defense Quarterly, published by the Professional Liability Defense Federation (PLDF), features an article by Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., entitled “Employee Non-Disclosure Agreements Post-Weinstein And #MeToo.”

READ ARTICLE

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., Managing Member, Seltzer Chadwick Soefje & Ladik, PLLC

In today’s divisive political and cultural climate, it is not surprising that confrontations between workers and customers are commonplace.

On February 12, 2018, a state trooper who had pulled up to the drive-thru of a Normal, Illinois McDonald’s restaurant was allegedly greeted by an employee with the expletive “F*** the police.” Upon hearing of the incident, the franchise owner made the immediate decision to terminate the offending employee.

In this circumstance, the employer was likely acting within its legal rights in firing the offending employee. After all, the customer did nothing to provoke the employee. The customer was right.

But, what if the circumstances are different? What if a female employee berates or slaps a male customer who gropes her? What if an African American employee curses a Caucasian customer who calls him “boy?” What, if anything, does the employer risk by doing nothing? What, if anything, does the employer risk by disciplining or discharging the employee?

The Risk of Acceding To Customer Preferences

A good starting point for addressing these questions is the clash often faced by employers between customer preferences and employment discrimination laws. The desire to please a paying customer can be a compelling incentive to accede to his or her preferences or demands. However, if the preference or demand is that the employer engage in unlawful employment discrimination, the price of acquiescence can be civil liability.

In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, for instance, an African-American healthcare worker challenged, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a nursing home’s policy of honoring the racial preferences of its residents in assigning health care providers. The nursing home acknowledged it routinely acceded to patient demands for white-only health care providers.

In denying the nursing home’s motion for summary judgment, the 7th Circuit said in a July 20, 2010 opinion: “It is now widely accepted that a company’s desire to cater to the perceived racial preferences of its customers is not a defense under Title VII for treating employees differently based on race.”

In Wilson v. Southwest Airlines, male applicants said they had been rejected for positions as Southwest flight attendants based upon gender, in violation of Title VII. Southwest  admitted its policy of hiring only female flight attendants, but argued their sex appeal was a bona fide occupational qualification.

In rejecting Southwest’s defense, a Texas federal court opined in a June 12, 1981 decision:
“Southwest is not a business where vicarious sex entertainment is the primary service provided. Accordingly, the ability of the airline to perform its primary business function, the transportation of passengers, would not be jeopardized by hiring males. Southwest does not face the situation … where an established customer preference for one sex is so strong that the business would be undermined if employees of the opposite sex were hired.”

To be sure, there may be circumstances where customer preference can be a bona fide occupational qualification. The aforementioned cases, however, show that customer preference cannot always justify otherwise unlawful discrimination against an employee.

The Risk Of Doing Nothing

The issue of customer preference also arises when an employee complains of discriminatory harassment by a customer. The employer may prefer not to upset or lose a customer by taking prompt remedial action. However, if the employer does nothing it risks potential liability to the complaining employee.

In Lockard v. Pizza Hut, another Title VII suit, a female waitress employed by a Pizza Hut franchisee claimed her employer did not respond properly to the inappropriate conduct of “two crude and rowdy made customers” who frequented the restaurant. She specifically testified her employer did nothing when the men made sexually offensive comments to her, such as “I would like to get into your pants”, and one man pulled her to him by the hair, grabbed her breast and put his mouth on her breast.

In denying the employers motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor the female waitress, the 10th Circuit noted in a December 14, 1998 opinion: “An employer who condones or tolerates the creation of such an environment should be held liable regardless of whether the environment was created by a co-employee or a nonemployee, since the employer ultimately controls the conditions of the work environment.”

The Risk Of Firing The Employee

Finally, the behavior of an employee in response to inappropriate conduct of a customer may, viewed in isolation, be considered grounds for discipline or termination. Viewed in context, however, the behavior may arguably be protected opposition under employment discrimination laws. Disciplining or terminating the employee, therefore, may prompt a retaliation claim.

In Folkerson v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc., for example. a mime artist punched a casino patron who attempted to embrace her during a performance. For this behavior, the mime was terminated. The mime sued under Title VII arguing her behavior was protected opposition to discrimination.

In an October 16, 1995 opinion, the 9th Circuit agreed that “reasonable defense against physical violence may be protected oppositional activity.” Finding the mime’s reaction reasonable under the circumstances, the court reversed a grant of summary judgment for the employer.

In Van Horn v. Specialized Support Services, Inc., the Title VII plaintiff was a female employee of a company which provides services to developmentally disabled clients.  In her complaint, she detailed the conduct of a client who, over the course of time, said he loved her, and attempted to hug her. Although the female employee complained of the client’s behavior, the employer allegedly did nothing. One day, the client pinched the female employee’s breast. In response, the female employee instinctively slapped the client. For this behavior, the female employee was terminated.

Although the Iowa federal court found insufficient evidence of a hostile work environment, a January 29, 2003 ruling found that slapping the client was protected opposition under Title VII. The Court opined: “when an employer’s failure to act forces an employee to act in self- defense at the workplace, the employee’s defensive conduct is reasonable and the employee cannot be terminated for doing so.”

To be clear, most federal discrimination cases have sided with the employer where an employee responds to perceived discrimination by cursing, shouting or resorting to physical violence. The aforementioned cases, however, show that courts may be more willing to find questionable behavior to be reasonable if it follows inaction by the employer in responding to prior incidents of harassment.

The Risk Of Siding With The Employee

No discussion of the risks arising from confrontations between employees and customers is complete without mention of an employer’s potential liability to customers for discrimination. Federal, state and local laws prohibit discrimination in public accommodations and contracts.  A comprehensive discussion of these laws is beyond the scope of this article. An employer must nevertheless be mindful of such laws before terminating a customer contract or refusing service to a customer based upon a confrontation with an employee.

Takeaway For Employers

When presented with evidence of a confrontation between an employee and a customer, an employer’s first instinct may be to side with the customer. Following that instinct, however, may risk liability under employment discrimination laws. Siding with the employee can also have legal consequences.

As with any unfortunate incident involving an employee, therefore, an employer must  undertake a reasonably diligent and unbiased effort to determine the truth. Sometimes, appearances can be deceiving, and the truth may lie beyond the single incident. Admittedly, a more comprehensive investigation will require more work than a rush to judgment. Still, it is more prudent to work to prevent an unwanted claim, than to work to defend an unwanted claim.

By Robert G. Chadwick, Jr., Managing Member, Seltzer Chadwick Soefje & Ladik, PLLC.

Political controversies, such as President Trump’s alleged use of the term “sh**hole” in reference to third-world countries, serve as a reminder to private employers that profanity in the workplace can also be a controversial issue. There is no federal law which expressly addresses profanity in the workplace, but profanity can still be at the heart of a legal dispute under applicable employment laws.

Protected Profanity?

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), for instance, has said that concerted activities for the mutual aid or protection of employees can be legally protected under the National Labor Relations Act even if laced with profanity. Several decisions show just how far the NLRB has gone to protect employee speech rights.

On May 19, 2014, an administrative law judge of the NLRB in Hooters of Ontario Mills found that a Hooters’ franchise had unlawfully fired an employee for shouting “you’re a f***ing b**ch” within earshot of customers during a bikini contest. The judge opined that the profanity was tied to a protected complaint that the contest was rigged. The employee was ordered to be reinstated.

On May 28, 2014, in Plaza Auto Center, Inc., the NLRB held that a business owner unlawfully discharged an employee who called him a “f***ing mother f***ing”, a “f***ing crook”, and an a**hole.” The NLRB said these statements were made during a meeting in which the employee lodged a protected complaint as to the calculation of sales commissions. The employee was ordered to be reinstated.

On March 31, 2015, in Pier Sixty, LLC, the NLRB again held that an employer unlawfully terminated an employee for the following Facebook post about his supervisor during a union organizing campaign: “Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F***ER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f***ing family!!!! What a LOSER!!! Vote YES for the UNION.” The NLRB opined that the Facebook comments were directed at the supervisor’s asserted mistreatment of employees, and sought redress through the upcoming election, and thus constituted protected, concerted and union activity. The employee was ordered to be reinstated.

Unlawful Profanity?

Under certain circumstances, moreover, workplace profanity may provide the basis for a claim of harassment under federal discrimination laws. Indeed, some decisions have found that severe and pervasive profanity can be the entire basis of a harassment claim.

On October 25, 2013, in Griffin v. City of Portland, an Oregon federal court decided the city’s motion for summary judgment as to a religious discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Oregon law. The employee, a devout Christian, alleged frequent profanity in the workplace, including the use of God’s and Jesus Christ’s name as curse words. The court found genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the employee was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her religion.

On April 28, 2008, in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the Eleventh Circuit decided a summary judgment motion as to a Title VII claim of sexual harassment. Unique to the fact pattern in this case was the existence of gender specific vulgarities which were not targeted or directed at women. The plaintiff specifically complained that sexually offensive language, such as “f**k”, “whore”, “b**ch”, “c*nt” and “d**k”, from multiple coworkers permeated the work environment every day. The court denied summary judgment for the employer.

Takeaway for Employers

As with many workplace issues, employers can face a legal tightrope when it comes to profanity in the workplace. An overly broad or aggressive approach can trigger an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. Ignoring or tolerating profanity altogether can trigger a harassment complaint. To traverse this legal tightrope, it is imperative that managers and supervisors be trained as to how to lead by example and how to respond to cursing employees. The risk of not doing so can be dire.