Settlement in HIV Termination Lawsuit Highlights Continuing Employer Confusion over ADA

A nationwide manufacturer and distributor of fruit juice will pay $125,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the EEOC on behalf of an employee who was terminated after the company learned he was HIV-positive. [EEOC v. Gregory Packaging, Inc. (N.D. Ga.]  The fact that the employer specifically told the man he was being terminated because of his HIV status highlights continuing employer confusion over the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), even twenty-five years after its passage, and especially as it relates to employees with HIV/AIDS.

The plaintiff in the case was employed as a machine operator at the Newnan, Georgia facility of Gregory Packaging, Inc., a company that sells juice products to school districts and medical institutions. When the employee developed a skin rash unrelated to his HIV, rumors began to circulate among other employees that the employee’s rash was the result of AIDS.  In an effort to quash the rumors, the employee informed his supervisor that while he did have HIV, the skin condition was unrelated, and there was no danger of him transmitting HIV to food products or co-workers.  Despite his good job performance, and no evidence of a health risk, the employee was terminated approximately a month later.  He was informed the reason he was being fired was because he had HIV.

The employee declined a separation agreement offered by the company, which included a release of claims. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) subsequently brought a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf, alleging violations of the ADA and similar claims brought under Georgia state law.  Despite the company’s early efforts to fight the lawsuit, the case was settled pursuant to a court-approved consent order, which provided for the $125,000 payment by the New Jersey based company, and required equal employment opportunity training and reporting to the EEOC.

What is most surprising about this case, is that even before the ADA’s expansion under the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act (“ADAAA”), it was generally established that a person with HIV/AIDS met the Act’s definition of an individual with a disability.  Furthermore, as noted in EEOC guidelines, even those who are regarded as having HIV/AIDS are protected under the Act, even if they do not have the disease.  The example given by the EEOC is a person being fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even though he was not infected.

Employers involved in the food and restaurant industry are often at the focus of these types of lawsuits. As was the case at Gregory’s Georgia facility, the situation is often fueled and exacerbated  by rumors spread by co-workers or customers, and fears of HIV/AIDS being transmitted through an employee’s contact with food products.   

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, HIV/AIDS is not a disease that can be transmitted through food handling. Diseases that can be transmitted by an infected person handling food include (1) noroviruses, (2) the Hepatitis A virus, (3) Salmonella, (4) Shigella, (5) Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus.  For more detailed information, employers in the food service/restaurant industry can find guidance through the EEOC publication “How to Comply with the Americans withDisabilities Act: A Guide for Restaurants and Other Food Service Employers.”

Employer’s also need to be aware that in the context of HIV/AIDS, the ADA also protects employees who do not have the disease, but have an association or relationship with someone who does.  In the EEOC guidelines, examples of employment discrimination against persons with HIV or AIDS include:

•         An automobile manufacturing company that had a blanket policy of refusing to hire anyone with HIV or AIDS.

•         An airline that extended an offer to a job applicant and then rescinded the offer after the employer discovered (during the post-offer physical) that the applicant had HIV.

•         A restaurant that fired a waitress after learning that the waitress had HIV.

•         A university that fired a physical education instructor after learning that the instructor’s boyfriend had AIDS.

•         A County tax assessment office that cancelled training opportunities for an accountant following her disclosure that she had HIV.

•         A retail store that generally rotated all sales associates between the sales floor (where they could earn commissions) and the stock room (where they processed merchandise) except for the sales associate who was rumored to have HIV, who was never rotated to the floor.

•         A call center employee who was denied a promotion to shift manager because his employer believed the employee would be unreliable since he had AIDS.

•         A company that contracted with an insurance company that had a cap on health insurance benefits provided to employees for HIV-related complications, but not on other health insurance benefits.

While the ADA does include a “direct threat” defense in regard to employees who pose a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the employee or others, the defense  requires medical or other objective evidence, as opposed to subjective beliefs or assumptions based on stereotypes.  However, the take-away from this case is that proper training of supervisors in addressing ADA issues is a much better and less expensive option than having to establish defenses after a suit has been filed.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com





EEOC Says “Do as I Say” and “Pay no Attention to What I Do” in Background Check Battle

            In its litigation offensive against employers over the use of criminal/credit background checks in making employment decisions, the federal agency is getting put on the spot over its own employment practices in two high profile cases. 
 

            In earlier posts, I discussed the EEOC’s lawsuits against national retailer Dollar General, and car maker BMW Manufacturing Co., alleging that the employers’ criminal background check policies systematically discriminated against African-American job applicants or existing employees.
 

            In the Dollar General case, the EEOC is currently fighting a motion to compel filed by the retailer, in which Dollar General is asking a U.S. District Court in Illinois to force the anti-discrimination agency to disclose its own policies on using background checks and criminal histories in employment decisions.  In a South Carolina District Court, BMW also has filed a similar motion to compel, seeking all of the EEOC’s documents regarding its policies and guidelines for evaluating the criminal records of individuals applying to work for the federal agency.
 

            Not surprisingly, the EEOC is arguing to the Courts in both cases that it should not be required to turn over the information, claiming the agency’s own practices are irrelevant to the allegations against the two companies.  In response, BMW, echoing an earlier response by Dollar General, noted to the Court:
 

This is not the first time that the EEOC has refused to provide information about its own employee screening policies and procedures while claiming that the policies and procedures of others are        unlawful . . . [a]nd, in all cases, courts have concluded that the information is relevant to issues of business necessity and estoppel and have compelled the EEOC to provide it.

The other cases BMW and Dollar General are referring to likely include the crushing defeat handed to the EEOC earlier this year by the United States Court of Appeals in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation.  In that case the EEOC sued the educational services company for implementing credit checks after discovering that some employees had stolen student’s financial aid payments. The credit check policy applied to job applicants seeking positions where they would have access to cash or financial information. The EEOC claimed the policy disproportionally impacted “more African-American applicants than white applicants.”
 

In its affirmation of the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the company, the Sixth Circuit blasted the EEOC’s disparate impact theory of liability. In ruling against the EEOC, the Sixth Circuit noted that pursuant to its own personnel handbook, the EEOC runs the very same type of credit checks on its employees because “[o]verdue just debts increase temptation to commit illegal or unethical acts as a means of gaining funds to meet financial obligations.” The court specifically and wryly noted that this was the very same reason that Kaplan adopted its policy. 





EEOC “Spam” Gets a Green Light

          Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “spam” as an “unsolicited usually commercial e-mail sent to a large number of addresses” or “a canned meat product.”  Another definition may now be “an aggressive investigative tactic of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which has been given a green light by the courts.”

On September 24, 2014, a U.S. District Court Judge in Washington, DC announced he will dismiss a lawsuit over the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sending a blast of more than 1300 e-mails to a company’s employees, requesting they supply information to the agency as part of an investigation into allegations of age discrimination.

In my October 2013 post, “You’ve Got (Mass) Mail . . . From the EEOC?”, I discussed the federal lawsuit filed by construction equipment maker Case New Holland (“CNH”) in which the company alleged the EEOC unconstitutionally solicited or “trolled” the company’s employees to become class members in a potential age discrimination class action.

Prior to the e-mail blitz, the company had cooperated with the EEOC’s investigative requests by producing ten of thousands of page of documents and hundreds of thousands of electronic documents.  The company heard nothing more from the agency for more than a year and a half, until the incident that caused the company to sue the EEOC.

At 8:00 a.m. on June 5, 2013, the EEOC conducted a mass e-mailing to the business e-mail addresses of 1330 CNH employees across the United States and Canada. Over 200 of the recipients were members of management. The e-mail stated the EEOC was conducting “a federal investigation” and making “an official inquiry” into allegations that CNH discriminated against job applicants and employees, and contained a link to an on-line series of questions regarding alleged discrimination. It also asked for the employee’s birth date, address and telephone number. The EEOC’s on-line survey instructed CNH employees to “Please complete and submit this electronic questionnaire as soon as possible.”

The e-mail had been sent without any advance notice to CNH and according to the lawsuit, the mass mailing disrupted CNH’s business operations at the start of the workday and communicated to employees they should cease their legitimate work duties and instead immediately respond to the agency’s questions. A significant concern was the company’s belief that the EEOC had deliberately cut the employer out of the investigatory process, and had solicited members of management, whose statements arguably could have bound the company.

CNH filed its lawsuit on August 1, 2013, alleging that the EEOC’s mass e-mailing: (1) was not authorized by any EEOC rule or regulation, (2) violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, (3) constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (4) violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (5) violated the EEOC’s own compliance manual, which requires that an employer be allowed to have a spokesman or attorney present during an interview of management employees, and that advance notice be given. The suit claims the EEOC engages in bullying tactics to force companies into monetary settlements of questionable claims.

However, in his ruling announcing his plans to dismiss CNH’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton stated that the company lacked standing to bring the suit because it was not able to establish how it was injured by the EEOC’s investigatory tactic, other than vague allegations of business disruptions.  Judge Walton announced he would issue a written opinion dismissing the case within the next two months.  At this time, the company has not announced if it plans to appeal the ruling.

Although the EEOC had never before utilized e-mail at this scale to try and identify alleged victims of discrimination, it had argued to the court that the tactic was clearly within the agency’s investigatory authority.

With the U.S. District Court giving the green light to the EEOC’s investigatory “spam”, at least for the time being, it appears highly likely that employers will be seeing much more of this tactic.  From the EEOC’s perspective, it is cheaper and quicker then actually sending investigators to a workplace, and has the added benefit of being able to target thousands of potential plaintiffs/class members with the click of a mouse.  Also, as noted in CNH's lawsuit, it has the effect of allowing the EEOC to cut the employer out of the investigative process.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

EEOC Targets Mandatory Arbitration Agreements in Lawsuit Against Restaurant Franchisee

 

 

      A Florida company that owns franchise restaurants, such as Applebee’s and Panera Bread, has been sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for making its employees sign mandatory arbitration agreements.  The lawsuit, filed September 18, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, is the latest instance of the EEOC targeting employer practices which the agency  views as limiting employees’ right to file charges of discrimination or bring lawsuits under Title VII and other employment discrimination statutes.

            According to the agency’s allegations in EEOC v. Doherty Enterprises, Inc. (Civil Action No. 9:14-cv-81184-KAM), the company “requires each prospective employee to sign a mandatory arbitration agreement as  a condition of employment.  The agreement  mandates that all employment-related claims -- which would otherwise allow  resort to the EEOC -- shall be submitted to and deter­mined exclusively by  binding arbitration.”  The EEOC alleges the arbitration agreements interfere with employees' rights to file discrimination charges and “violates Section 707 of Title VII of the Civil  Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employer conduct that constitutes a pattern  or practice of resistance to the rights protected by Title VII.

            The lawsuit is not surprising since the EEOC made it clear in its 2013 – 2016 Strategic Enforcement Plan that “[t]he EEOC will target policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes, or that impede the EEOC's investigative or enforcement efforts.”  However, while these type of “test” cases by the agency result in substantial legal costs for employers, the EEOC does not seem to have been getting much bang for its buck when it actually gets in front of a federal judge.

            As noted in my September 21, 2014 posting, “EEOC Experiences “Separation Anxiety”in Lawsuit Against CVS”, last week the EEOC suffered a big defeat in their controversial lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, over the drug store chain’s use of separation agreements for departing employees.  In that lawsuit, the EEOC had taken the same approach as it has in this latest case, alleging the drug store chain’s use of very standardized separation agreements demonstrated a pattern and practice of CVS interfering with employees' Title VII in a way that “deters the filing of charges and interferes with employees' ability to communicate voluntarily with the EEOC.” 

            In comments about the agency’s lawsuit against Doherty Enterprises, EEOC Regional Counsel Robert E. Weisberg left little doubt that more lawsuits over arbitration agreements can be expected:

"Employee communication with the  EEOC is integral to the agency's mission of eradicating employment discrimination.  When an employer forces all complaints about  employment discrimination into confidential arbitration, it shields itself from  federal oversight of its employment practices.   This practice violates the law, and the EEOC will take action to deter further use of these types of overly broad arbitration agreements."

           
        As was the case of separation agreements in the CVS lawsuit, mediation agreements are commonly used by employers nationwide, and the EEOC’s litigation focus is troubling to the business community.  For employers who utilize arbitration agreements, it would be advisable to have them reviewed by legal counsel.

 Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com





EEOC Experiences “Separation Anxiety” in Lawsuit Against CVS

          The details are still yet to be known, but word out of Chicago is that the EEOC has suffered a big defeat in their controversial lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy, over the drug store chain’s use of separation agreements.  Employers commonly use separation or severance agreements when the employment relationship ends. In exchange for some type of payment, the employee agrees to a general release of any potential claims he or she might have against the employer, and possibly other provisions, such as confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.

As reported in my August 8, 2014 post “Mad Men: The EEOC Advertises its Aggressive Agenda”, earlier this year, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against CVS, claiming the drug store chain’s use of its standard separation agreement demonstrated a pattern and practice of CVS interfering with employees' Title VII in a way that “deters the filing of charges and interferes with employees' ability to communicate voluntarily with the EEOC.” 

The EEOC’s lawsuit was troubling for many in the business community, because employers nationwide commonly use the language being attacked in the CVS agreements. In the event the EEOC were to prevail, it could have result in chaos for many businesses, casting into doubt the validity of such standard severance agreements, and potentially allowing former employees to revive previously barred claims.  

On September 18, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge John Darrah verbally granted CVS’s motion to dismiss based on the EEOC’s failure to state a claim, and an opinion is expected shortly that will give the Court’s basis for dismissing the EEOC’s lawsuit.  CVS has announced it is pleased with the decision and the EEOC is withholding comment until it sees the Judge’s written opinion.

It is not surprising that the EEOC filed the lawsuit.  In its Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2013-2016, the EEOC had announced its intent to target employer policies it claimed discouraged or prohibited individuals from exercising their legal rights, including overly broad waivers or settlement provisions that prohibited filing EEOC charges or providing information in EEOC or other legal proceedings.

In its rush to file a “test” case, the EEOC might have made the error of simply picking the wrong defendant to go after, or not bothering to actually read the agreements in question.  When it filed its motion to dismiss, CVS noted that its separation agreements expressly allowed for employees to participate with and cooperate in any investigation by a government agency, including the EEOC. Specifically, CVS’s agreements expressly note that none of the provisions are:

“[I]ntended to or shall interfere with employee’s right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws, nor shall this Agreement prohibit employee from cooperating with any such agency in its investigation,” provided of course that the employee waives her entitlement to monetary and other relief.

       The decision in the CVS case may not bode well for a similar lawsuit filed by the EEOC in the United States District Court of Colorado.  Some legal commentators have suggested that the EEOC may be trying to use this type litigation to impose new guidelines for such agreements, or perhaps as a prelude to more formalized regulation

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

EEOC Tells Employers “If you like your Criminal Background Check…you Can Keep your Criminal Background Check”

 After suffering defeats over its efforts to enforce guidelines on the use of criminal background checks, it appears the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has launched its version of a charm offensive, while simultaneously girding for appellate battle over its latest courtroom loss.

At the recent American Bar Association's Annual Labor and Employment Conference, top EEOC officials argued that the federal agency was not trying to prevent employers from using background checks. The EEOC’s Senior Counsel James Paretti said the EEOC’s new guidelines merely seek a balance between employers’ interests in protecting property and ensuring personal safety, and making sure that minority job seekers are not subjected to disparate impact discrimination under Title VII.

Paretti denied that the EEOC was administratively seeking to create a new protected class of individuals with criminal records. Under the 2012 enforcement guidelines, the stated rationale for the EEOC’s position was that employers’ reliance on criminal records as a factor in hiring decisions disproportionately affects minorities, who statistically have higher rates of arrest and criminal conviction, i.e. disparate impact.

One continuing complaint about the EEOC’s guidelines is that it places significant costs on employers to create and maintain screening systems to evaluate whether an individual with a criminal record should be excluded on the basis of business necessity, using factors such as the severity of the crime, the period of time since conviction and the specific duties and responsibilities of the job sought. The guidelines further require employers to allow for an additional individualized assessment to those excluded by the initial screening, to explain why they should not be disqualified.

In what appears to be a new approach by the EEOC, Paretti strongly suggested that while employers are free to use background checks, they should not do them until after employers already have determined that the applicant meets all other job qualifications. In a less than subtle threat, EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum noted that the agency was looking into whether the EEOC would consider it a record-keeping violation if employers did not retain data on the disparate impact the an employer’s background screening had on minorities.

I have two thoughts on this. First, requiring employers to go through the time and expense of ensuring an applicant’s qualifications, and then leaving a background check until last, could result in wasted efforts and additional costs. For example, an employer could spend significant time and effort confirming that a candidate is ideally qualified to be a daycare administrator, only to find out at the end, per the EEOC’s suggestion, that the job candidate is a convicted sexual offender, and ineligible for such a position.

Second, the EEOC’s intimation that employers who use background checks could be subject to even more stringent record-keeping requirements, belies their claim that they are not trying to eliminate employers from using background checks.

In a related note, you may recall in my September 30, 2013 posting, the EEOC suffered a court defeat in the case of EEOC v. Freeman. In that case, a District Court in Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer Freeman, dismissing the plaintiff EEOC’s claim that Freeman’s background check policies violated Title VII. In the Court’s opinion, it issued a stinging rebuke to the EEOC for pursuing a disparate impact discrimination claim based on “a theory in search of facts to support it.”

On November 6, 2013, the EEOC appealed the District Court’s dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Other than the loss of face over the Court’s rejection of their theory of liability, the EEOC has another strong motivation to appeal the adverse ruling. Following the ruling in its favor, Freeman filed a motion to require the EEOC to cover the company’s $1.2 million dollars in attorneys’ fees.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

“Don’t Mess with Texas” . . . the Lone Star State Sues the EEOC over Employers’ Use of Criminal Background Checks

The State of Texas has filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that the federal agency has overstepped its statutory authority by imposing limits on employers’ use of criminal background checks in making employment decisions.

It has been over a year since the EEOC issued strict enforcement guidelines, seeking to limit employers’ ability to make employment decisions based on an individual’s criminal history. The stated rationale for the EEOC’s position is that employers’ reliance on criminal records as a factor in hiring decisions disproportionately affects minorities, who statistically have higher rates of arrest and criminal conviction, and has a disparate impact in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). While not completely banning the use of background checks, the EEOC guidelines place a burden on employers to prove that such reliance is based on business necessity.

The lawsuit by the State of Texas alleges that the EEOC “purports to limit the prerogative of employers, including Texas, to exclude convicted felons from employment” and that the State of Texas and “its constituent agencies have the right to impose categorical bans on the hiring of criminals, and the EEOC has no authority to say otherwise.”

Since the EEOC released the new enforcement guidelines in 2012, it has brought a series of lawsuits against employers, alleging violations of Title VII. However, federal courts have expressed skepticism over the federal agency’s theory of liability and in recent cases, have ruled against the EEOC and in favor of employers. In one such case, a U.S. District Court chastised the EEOC for pursuing a disparate impact discrimination claim based on “a theory in search of facts to support it.”

In its lawsuit, the State of Texas is asking the U.S. District Court to declare that the EEOC’s use of the guidelines are invalid and to enjoin the EEOC from challenging the State’s policy of not hiring convicted felons for certain state jobs.

At the time the EEOC released the stricter guidelines, many legal commentators noted that Congress had never granted the federal agency such rulemaking authority, and that the guidelines were an illegitimate exercise of authority.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLC, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com

Employment Non-Discrimination Act Nears Senate Vote and Related "Lagniappe"

In a  posting last month, I noted on the improved prospects for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), which would extend Title VII protection against employment discrimination to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender employees (“LGBT”). The law would make sexual orientation/sexual identity a protected class in the same manner race, religion, gender, national origin, age and disability are protected under existing federal laws, and make it illegal for organizations with 15 or more employees to:

"[F]ail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity."

On Monday, October 28, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced that he would bring the legislation to a Senate vote within the coming weeks. The legislation has picked up support from two Republicans in the majority Democrat chamber. Passage in the Senate would be a symbolic first for the legislation, which has been unsuccessfully introduced in one form or another for decades. However, it is unlikely that bill will get much traction in the House of Representatives.

This is an issue where the private sector has quietly taken action without the help or hindrance of lawmakers in Washington. A significant majority of Fortune 500 companies have voluntarily put in place policies prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or sexual identity. Some states also have  passed similar legislation into law.

 

However, specific provisions of ENDA do raise concern among employers, on such issues as employer dress codes. The language of ENDA does not prohibit “reasonable dress or grooming standards” but would require employers to permit:

"[A]ny employee who has undergone gender transition prior to the time of employment, and any employee who has notified the employer that the employee has undergone or is undergoing gender transition after the time of employment, to adhere to the same dress or grooming standards as apply for the gender to which the employee has transitioned or is transitioning."

Employers also have expressed worries about ENDA interpretations that would require employers to allow access to restrooms or dressing/locker rooms to employees who are biologically one gender, but identify with another gender. With the potential for sexual harassment liability or privacy issues, some business owners believe, for example, that ENDA would force them to ignore the legitimate concerns of female employees about having to share a restroom of dressing room with a male employee who self-identifies as a woman.

Regardless of how ENDA fares in Congress, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) is already trying to pursue some of the same goals of ENDA, within the existing structure of Title VII. As I’ve previously discussed, late last year, the EEOC released its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”) for 2013 – 2016. Among the agency’s targeted goals was to provide LGBT coverage under Title VII sex discrimination, even though such protection is not contained within the actual statute. The SEP also addressed the agency’s intent to curtail employer’s use of criminal background checks when making employment decisions.

In a somewhat related story, on September 27, 2013, in an en banc ruling, a ten-judge majority of a bitterly divided sixteen-judge Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the EEOC could establish a same-sex harassment claim with evidence of gender stereotyping in the form of sexually charged taunting directed at a male employee by his male supervisor. EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013).

In 2007, the employee filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sexual harassment stemming from the conduct of his male supervisor, who oversaw an all-male workforce on an ironworker construction site. The supervisor purportedly was lewd and vulgar to the employee on a daily basis, including instances of exposing his genitals to the employee while urinating, simulating anal intercourse whenever the employee bent over, and using homophobic slurs to refer to the employee. Upon completion of the administrative process, the EEOC brought an enforcement action on the employee’s behalf and, following a three-day jury trial, obtained a $300,000 verdict in favor of the employee.

The employer appealed the verdict. Initially, a Fifth Circuit panel tossed out the trial verdict for the employee, finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the supervisor had discriminated against the employee because of his gender. The EEOC subsequently sought and obtained an en banc review. Upon review, the en banc majority disagreed with the panel’s decision to overturn the jury verdict.

Although same-sex harassment has been judicially recognized for over a decade, this decision links the concept of unlawful gender stereotyping directly to same-sex harassment and reminds employers that same-sex taunting can be actionable. Moreover, the court noted that there was no evidence that either the employee or supervisor were homosexual, nor was evidence presented that the conduct at issue was motivated by sexual desire. The court’s opinion cautions that notions of sexual harassment based solely on sexual desire or exclusively between members of the opposite sex are misplaced and can increase risks for employers who are not aware that the prohibitions can be broader.

Employers should review their anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies in light of this opinion, and stay tuned for further developments in this area.

* Lagniappe: An extra or unexpected gift or benefit, i.e. “a little something extra”. (Chiefly Southern Louisiana & Mississippi).

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijman@phelps.com

 

“You’ve Got (Mass) Mail”…From the EEOC?

In an ironic reversal of roles, on Monday October 21, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) asked a federal District Court in the District of Columbia to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the agency by an aggrieved employer. The lawsuit alleges the EEOC unconstitutionally solicited or “trolled” the company’s employees to become class members in a potential age discrimination class action. (Case New Holland, Inc. and CNH America LLC v. EEOC et al., Civil Action No. 1:13cv1176).

The suit claims the EEOC violated the law by sending a mass e-mail, utilizing the company’s business e-mail domains, to over 1300 management and non-management employees, requesting the employees complete a survey and supply evidence of discrimination against the employer.

For employers more familiar with the typical EEOC procedures associated with a Charge of Discrimination, the mass e-mailing and request for information, without any notice to the company, raises some serious red flags.

The facts of the case are as follows. In March 2011, the EEOC notified CNH America, LLC (“CNH”) that it was launching a nation-wide review of the company for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The company employs approximately 10,000 people in the United States. The EEOC made a sweeping request for information and documents.

According to the lawsuit, in January 2012, the company produced to the EEOC 300 documents totaling 5,707 pages and over 600,000 electronic records from CNH databases, totaling 66,630 pages of documents. After complying with the agency’s request, the company received no communications of any sort from the EEOC until June 5, 2013, eighteen months later.

At 8:00 a.m. on June 5, 2013, the EEOC conducted a mass e-mailing to the business e-mail addresses of 1330 CNH employees across the United States and Canada. Over 200 of the recipients were members of management. The e-mail stated the EEOC was conducting “a federal investigation” and making “an official inquiry” into allegations that CNH discriminated against job applicants and employees, and contained a link to an on-line series of questions. It also asked for the employee’s birth date, address and telephone number. The EEOC’s on-line survey instructed CNH employees to “Please complete and submit this electronic questionnaire as soon as possible.”

The e-mail had been sent without any advance notice to CNH and according to the lawsuit, the mass mailing disrupted CNH’s business operations at the start of the work day and communicated to employees they should cease their legitimate work duties and instead immediately respond to the agency’s questions. A significant concern was the company’s belief that the EEOC had deliberately cut the employer out of the investigatory process, and had solicited members of management, whose statements arguably could have bound the company.

CNH filed its lawsuit on August 1, 2013, alleging that the EEOC’s mass e-mailing: (1) was not authorized by any EEOC rule or regulation, (2) violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act, (3) constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (4) violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (5) violated the EEOC’s own compliance manual, which requires that an employer be allowed to have a spokesman or attorney present during an interview of management employees, and that advance notice be given. The suit claims the EEOC engages in bullying tactics to force companies into monetary settlements of questionable claims.

The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the EEOC from soliciting CNH employees by e-mail, and additional injunctive relief to prevent the EEOC from utilizing any of the information obtained through the mass e-mailing. The lawsuit claims:

"The EEOC has never, before June 5, 2013, sent out emails through business email servers, without any prior notice to the respondent employer, in an attempt to unearth plaintiffs against the employer"

On October 21, 2013, after some extensions granted by the District Court, the EEOC responded with a Motion to Dismiss. While addressing CNH’s various claims, the EEOC’s primary argument was that the case should be dismissed because the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider CNH’s claims because it was not a “final agency action”, and that the EEOC’s actions were within the agency’s investigative authority. Additional briefing by the parties will take place before any ruling.

I am not going to try to “read the tea leaves” as to how the District Court will ultimately rule in this case, but a few things are worth noting. First, the EEOC has been less than successful lately when it comes to telling U.S. District Judges what their authority is in regard to the agency. You’ll recall in a recent posting, I discussed the EEOC’s recently stated position that the agency’s conciliation efforts with employers, or lack thereof, were not subject to review by the federal courts. As noted in my article, the EEOC subsequently received a severe slap-down by a U.S. District Judge in Texas. The EEOC also has recently found itself subject to significant monetary sanctions by federal courts for some of its investigatory and litigation tactics.

Second, this extremely aggressive approach by the EEOC should concern employers because it seems to be a deliberate effort to cut employers and their legal counsel out of the investigatory process. The EEOC has always had the investigatory right to interview non-management employees without an employer representative or attorney present. However, because a statement by a member of management could be considered a binding admission on the part of the company, an employer is entitled to have legal counsel present for such interviews. It’s very easy to envisage a manager being cowed by a very official and intimidating e-mail into providing information, unbeknownst to the employer.

Third, heavy handed tactics, such as the mass mailing to the CNH employees described in the Complaint, or other EEOC actions that have caught the attention of the federal courts and resulted in sanctions, could conceivably result in blowback for the agency. This might include congressional action to limit the EEOC’s authority.

Mark Fijman is a labor and employment attorney with Phelps Dunbar, LLP, which has offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and London. To view his firm bio, click here. He can be reached at (601) 360-9716 and by e-mail at fijmanm@phelps.com