U.S. SUPREME COURT PASSES ON WEIGHTY ISSUE OF OBESITY AS A DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA

The United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that that an obese job applicant was not disabled for purposes of a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court left unresolved an issue splitting federal courts, and leaving employers without guidance as to reasonable accommodations and other requirements under the ADA.

 

Obesity is a subject most employers are likely to face. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDCP"), more than one-third (36.5%) of U.S. adults qualify as obese (my home state has unfortunately once again tied for the silver medal in this competition). This has a significant impact on employee health-related costs. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, some of the leading causes of preventable death. The CDCP estimates that the annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. is $147 billion, and the medical costs for people who are obese are $1,429 higher than those of normal weight.

The story of Morriss v. BNSF Railway Company began in 2011. Melvin Morriss applied for a machinist position with BNSF Railway Company ("BNSF"), and was extended a conditional offer of employment. Because the position was safety sensitive, however, the offer of employment was contingent on a satisfactory medical review.

BNSF doctors conducted two physical examinations of Morriss, who was 5’10" tall. In the first, Morriss weighed 285 pounds and had a body mass index ("BMI") of 40.9. In the second, he weighed 281 pounds and had a BMI of 40.4. BNSF’s policy was not to hire a new applicant for a safety-sensitive position if his BMI equaled or exceeded 40. The company notified Morriss by e-mail that he was "[n]ot currently qualified for the safety sensitive Machinist position due to significant health and safety risks associated with Class 3 obesity ([BMI] of 40 or greater)", and revoked its conditional offer of employment. Other than being overweight, Morriss had no other health problems, was not diabetic, and experienced no difficulties or limitations in his daily activities.

Morriss filed a lawsuit under the ADA, which was dismissed by a Nebraska federal District Court, which held that Morriss had failed to provide any evidence that his obesity was an actual disability under the ADA. The court first noted that to succeed on this claim, Morriss was required to show that his obesity was a physical impairment, defined under the ADA as a physiological disorder or condition that affects a major body system. Morriss appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

 

Prior to the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") took the position that "except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment." However, after enactment of the ADAAA, the EEOC broadened the definitions of what constituted a disability, and concluded that weight outside the normal range, that was the result of a physiological disorder, constituted a disability.

 

However, despite the ADAAA’s more expansive definitions, on appeal, the Eighth Circuit’s opinion rejected Morriss’s arguments, and affirmed the District Court’s holding:  

"Morriss contends that his obesity, in and of itself, is a physical impairment because it has been labeled ‘severe,’ ‘morbid,’ or ‘Class III’ obesity. This contention garners no support from the EEOC regulations, which state that weight is merely a physical characteristic—not a physical impairment—unless it is both outside the normal range and the result of an underlying physiological disorder.

As previously noted, Morriss has provided no evidence to prove that his obesity is the result of a physiological disorder, and so he instead cites the EEOC Compliance Manual, which states that, while ‘normal deviations’ in weight ‘that are not the result of a physiological disorder are not impairments[,] . . . [a]t extremes, . . . such deviations may constitute impairments.’ The Compliance Manual also states that ‘severe obesity,’ namely, ‘body weight more than 100% over the norm,’ is an impairment. We first note that this Compliance Manual pronouncement directly contradicts the plain language of the Act, as well as the EEOC’s own regulations and interpretive guidance, which, as previously explained, all define ‘physical impairment’ to require an underlying physiological disorder or condition.

In sum, we conclude that for obesity, even morbid obesity, to be considered a physical impairment, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition. This remains the standard even after enactment of the ADAAA, which did not affect the definition of physical impairment. Because Morriss failed to produce evidence that his obesity was the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, the district court properly concluded that Morriss did not have a physical impairment under the ADA."

The Eighth Circuit is not the first U.S. appellate court, post ADAAA, to require that obesity or morbid obesity must be caused by a physiological condition to be considered a disability. See EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436 (6^th Cir. 2006).

However, federal courts have ruled otherwise, and held that severe obesity, in of itself, is enough to constitute a disability under the ADA, as amended by the ADAAA.   The case of   EEOC v. Res. For Human Dev., Inc., 827 F.Supp. 2d 688 (E.D. La. 2011) involved a woman named Lisa Harrison, who worked as a prevention / intervention specialist at a non-profit Louisiana addiction treatment facility. In its suit, the EEOC charged the facility violated the ADA when it fired Harrison because of her severe obesity, even though she was able to perform the essential functions of her job.  Before the EEOC filed suit, Harrison died.  In denying the employer’s summary judgment motion to dismiss the case, and sending it to trial, the District Court’s opinion held that:

"A careful reading of the EEOC guidelines and the ADA reveals that the requirement for a physiological cause is only required when a charging party's weight is within the normal range. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). However, if a charging party's weight is outside the normal range that is, if the charging party is severely obese there is no explicit requirement that obesity be based on a physiological impairment. At all relevant points, Harrison was severely obese; when she was hired, she weighed in excess of 400 pounds, and when she was terminated, she weighed in excess of 500 pounds."

However the case never went to trial. Following the District Court’s ruling against the employer, the addiction treatment facility settled with the EEOC for $125,000.

So after the Supreme Court’s decision to not review the Eighth Circuit ruling in Morriss, where does this leave employers? First of all, employers should not consider the Morriss ruling to mean that obesity can never be a disability under the ADA. As in all such cases, a determination of whether an employee has a covered disability requires an individualized assessment of the particular facts and circumstances. However, the ruling by the District Court in Louisiana also should be troubling to employers, because under that interpretation, more than a third of the adults in this country could conceivably be considered disabled, based on the CDCP’s statistics. Expect to see the Supreme Court forced to weigh-in on this issue in the future. 

EEOC PAYS SETTLEMENT FOR VIOLATING OVERTIME RULES AND THE NLRB PAYS THE PRICE FOR “ADMINISTRATIVE HUBRIS”

Welcome back to another episode of “Federal Employment Agencies Behaving Badly” and in this week’s episode, we’ll start off with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the federal agency tasked with enforcing the nation’s anti-discrimination laws.  While the EEOC does not enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the laws regarding overtime pay, it is required to comply with the FLSA as it relates to the agency’s own employees. As a reminder of this fact, the EEOC has now agreed to pay a $1.53 Million settlement for failing to properly pay overtime to its employees.

The case began back in 2006, and in 2009, an arbitration ruling found the EEOC had violated the FLSA by requiring investigators, mediators and paralegals to work during lunch hours, on weekends, or after hours, and then forcing them to accept compensatory time instead of the overtime pay they were entitled to for their overtime errors.  EEOC employees described what they were subjected to as “forced volunteering.”  The ruling held:

There is an entitlement to overtime, whereas compensatory time operates as an alternative, should the employees request it . . .  Put another way, it is incorrect to view the FLSA as providing non-exempt employees with the option of selecting either overtime or compensatory time. The right is to overtime; compensatory time is the option.”

The arbitration ruling seven years ago urged the EEOC and the union representing the federal employees to reach a settlement, however, an agreement was not reached until September 22, 2016. 

Despite the settlement, the union was critical of the EEOC’s role in the long delay toward resolving the dispute.  According to National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216 President Gabrielle Martin “It has been very frustrating to employees that this case has gone on for a decade during which employees retired or unfortunately passed away . . . It is a sad irony that the agency charged with preventing discrimination against workers violated the rights of its employees.”

Our next segment deals with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which is the federal agency charged with enforcing U.S. labor law and investigating and remedying unfair labor practices.  A federal appeals court judge has now ordered the agency to pay a company nearly $18,000.00 in legal fees for engaging in “bad faith litigation” and engaging in “administrative hubris”

In Heartland Plymouth Court MI, LLC v. NLRB, a company sought legal fees after it had successfully appealed an NLRB ruling that incorrectly found the company had violated a collective bargaining agreement by reducing employee hours.  In the opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the NLRB had taken positions unsupported by the law, which placed the employer in the untenable position of having to incur the costs of an unjustified settlement demand, or the legal costs of appealing the NLRB’s improper ruling:

  Facts may be stubborn things, but the Board’s longstanding “nonacquiescence” towards the law of any circuit diverging from the Board’s preferred national labor policy takes obduracy to a new level. As this case shows, what the Board proffers as a sophisticated tool towards national uniformity can just as easily be an instrument of oppression, allowing the government to tell its citizens: “We don’t care what the law says, if you want to beat us, you will have to fight us.”  It is clear enough that the Board’s conduct was intended to send a chilling message to Heartland, as well as others caught in the Board’s crosshairs.

 

Let the word go forth: for however much the judiciary has emboldened the administrative state, we “say what the law is.” In other words, administrative hubris does not get the last word under our Constitution. And citizens can count on it.

 

A MESSAGE TO READERS OF "THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO"  

 A reader of this blog recently asked if she could be included on an e-mail list for new posts.  I currently do not have an e-mail service but it seems like an excellent idea and I will be setting it up in the very near future.  If you would like to be included, please send your name, your company, and your e-mail to me at fijmanm@phelps.com.  Thanks! 



NLRB CONTINUES AGGRESIVE CRACKDOWN ON EMPLOYEE HANDBOOKS

As The Employee With The Dragon Tattoo first reported back in 2014 and 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken a highly aggressive position against many commonly utilized employee handbook policies.  The NLRB alleges that overbroad employment policies could have a chilling effect on employees’ concerted activities protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”).  This applies whether employees are members of a union or not.  Under the NLRB’s 2015 interpretive guidelines, an employer’s policy will violate the NLRA if it could simply be “construed” as restricting Section 7 rights.

The NLRB has now taken it one step further.  In a recent ruling earlier this Summer, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held that a California casino’s handbook policy that prohibited employees from conducting “personal business” while on the job on company property could be construed to be illegal under the Act.  In the ruling, the ALJ held:

[T]he prohibition against conducting "personal business" on company property and "while at work" can reasonably be read to restrict the communications of employees with each other about union or other Section 7 protected rights in non-work areas and on non-work time. The rule makes it clear that personal business is the opposite of "Casino Pauma business," thus including communications about unions or complaints about working conditions in the "personal business" category. The restriction of protected activity "while at work" is also too broad because it is not properly restricted to "work time" and thus bans protected activity during  nonwork time, such a time on lunch, breaks and before and after work.

 

At the least, the prohibitions against conducting "personal business" in Rule 2.19 are ambiguous insofar as that term may be read to include discussions about unions and other concerted activity; the rule thus puts employees at risk if they guess wrongly about what the Respondent means by "personal business." (citations omitted).

The ALJ’s opinion also noted that under the Act, employees are generally free to distribute union literature on company property during such nonwork time as long as it is in nonworking areas of the company facility.

In its 2015 interpretive guidelines, the NLRB listed a series of other commonly implemented employment policies that it maintained were illegally overbroad.  Examples of such policies include:

·         Do not discuss "customer or employee information" outside of work, including "phone numbers [and] addresses."

·         "You must not disclose proprietary or confidential information about [the Employer, or] other associates (if the proprietary or confidential information relating to [the Employer's] associates was obtained in violation of law or lawful Company policy)."

·         Prohibiting employees from "[d]isclosing ... details about the [Employer]."

·         "Sharing of [overheard conversations at the work site] with your co-workers, the public, or anyone outside of your immediate work group is strictly prohibited."

·         "Discuss work matters only with other [Employer] employees who have a specific business reason to know or have access to such information.. .. Do not discuss work matters in public places."

·         "[I]f something is not public information, you must not share it."

The ALJ’s opinion that a policy against conducting personal business “while at work” likely seems nonsensical to employers who are legitimately trying to prevent employees from spending their work hours on Facebook, shopping on Amazon, or chatting with friends on the phone.  However, this latest ruling is a wake-up call for employers to review their employee handbooks to address any purported ambiguity that the NLRB might “construe” as being overbroad.

A MESSAGE TO READERS OF "THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO"  

 A reader of this blog recently asked if she could be included on an e-mail list for new posts.  I currently do not have an e-mail service but it seems like an excellent idea and I will be setting it up in the very near future.  If you would like to be included, please send your name, your company, and your e-mail to me at fijmanm@phelps.com.  Thanks! 



THE EEOC GETS A DREAD (LOCKS) RULING

Back in October 2013, The Employee With The Dragon Tattoo told you about how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") had filed suit against Catastrophe Management Solutions Inc. (“CMSI”), an Alabama based insurance claims company.  The lawsuit alleged the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against an African-American job applicant on the basis of race because she wore dreadlocks. The case highlighted the employment issues that can arise over workplace grooming policies, and also sparked sharp criticism against the EEOC’s position from the business community, as well as on the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

 

However, in a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has upheld the employer’s workplace ban on dreadlocks and rejected the EEOC’s hard-edged position that a mutable choice, such as hairstyle, equals an immutable trait such as race.
 

The case began back in 2012.  Chastity Jones was offered a position with CMSI as a customer service representative. At the time of her interview, Jones, who is black, had blond hair that was dreaded in neat curls, or “curllocks.” CMSI’s grooming policy required employees to be “dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image while adhering to company and industry standards and/or guidelines . . . [H]airstyles should reflect a business/professional image.  No excessive hairstyles or unusual colors are acceptable.”  When the manager in charge told Jones that the company did not allow dreadlocks and that she would have to change her hairstyle in order to obtain employment. Jones declined to do so, and the manager immediately rescinded the job offer.
 

In the lawsuit, the EEOC argued that CMSI’s ban on dreadlocks and the imposition of its grooming policy on Jones discriminated against African-Americans based on physical and/or cultural characteristics.  At the time of the filing of the lawsuit, Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for the EEOC's Birmingham District Office, stated, “Generally, there are racial distinctions in the natural texture of black and non-black hair. The EEOC will not tolerate employment discrimination against African-American employees because they choose to wear and display the natural texture of their hair, manage and style their hair in a manner amenable to it, or manage and style their hair in a manner differently from non-blacks.” 

The lower federal court later dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that unlike race, “a hairstyle, even one closely associated with a particular ethnic group, is a mutable characteristic.”  The EEOC appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing that dreadlocks are a natural outgrowth of the immutable trait of race and that a policy forbidding dreadlocks could be a form of racial stereotyping.
 

In his recent article discussing the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling against the EEOC, my colleague Day Peake, in Phelps Dunbar’s Mobile, Alabama Office, explained the appellate court’s rationale:
 

The Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII’s prohibition on intentional discrimination does not protect hairstyles culturally associated with race. Rather, it prohibits intentional discrimination based on immutable traits such as race, color or national origin. By this rationale, the court explained, discrimination based on black hair texture, such as a natural Afro, would violate Title VII. A prohibition on an all-braided hairstyle, however, addresses a mutable choice and does not implicate Title VII’s proscription of intentional race discrimination.

This decision offers an important exploration of the definition of “race,” which is not defined in Title VII. EEOC relied on its Compliance Manual definition, which provides that “Title VII prohibits employment discrimination against a person because of cultural characteristics often linked to race or ethnicity, such as a person’s name, cultural dress and grooming practices, or accent or manner of speech.” The court chose not to give this guidance much deference or weight in its analysis because the court found the guidance to be contradictory to a position taken by EEOC in an earlier administrative appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit also rejected and criticized the EEOC’s argument on appeal that CMSI’s grooming policy was illegal under a theory of disparate impact, which does not require proof of discriminatory intent, as opposed to disparate treatment, which would constitute intentional discrimination.

In addition to a victory for CMSI, the Eleventh Circuit also vindicated the Wall Street Journal’s assessment of the EEOC’s lawsuit back in 2013:

Apparently Ms. Franklin-Thomas has never seen dreadlocked whites (like the Counting Crow's Adam Duritz) or Latinas (like Shakira). Catastrophe's policy is in fact racially neutral because it enjoins all employees, regardless of race, "to be dressed and groomed in a manner that projects a professional and businesslike image," including "hairstyle." The company determined that dreadlocks don't meet that standard, as is its right . . . The larger travesty of this case and other misbegotten EEOC crusades of late is that they take time and resources away from individuals with legitimate claims of employment discrimination. Banning dreadlocks doesn't qualify.

Notwithstanding the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling, issues of workplace grooming and dress codes are often case and fact specific, and can easily turn into a litigation minefield, particularly over issues of religious accommodation.  This was highlighted recently in the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores (2015). 

Employers should carefully and regularly review such policies, and consult with counsel prior to taking adverse employment actions based on violations of such policies that might implicate a protected class of employees under Title VII.

A MESSAGE TO READERS OF "THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO"  

 A reader of this blog recently asked if she could be included on an e-mail list for new posts.  I currently do not have an e-mail service but it seems like an excellent idea and I will be setting it up in the very near future.  If you would like to be included, please send your name, your company, and your e-mail to me at fijmanm@phelps.com.  Thanks! 



 



EEOC SUES EMPLOYER OVER POSITIVE DRUG TEST FOR PRESCRIPTION OPIOID PAINKILLER

            In recent years, the abuse of prescription opioid pain medication has become a widely reported national epidemic. The New England Journal of Medicine reports millions of Americans are addicted to prescription pain medications, and The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that more people died from drug overdoses in 2014 than in any year on record, with the majority of deaths from opioids, and 78  Americans die every day from an opioid overdose.  Prescription opioid abuse also has been linked to the national increase in heroin addiction.  Commonly prescribed opioid painkillers include Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Oxycodone(OxyContin, Percocet), morphine (Kadian, Avinza) or medications containing Codeine.

            However, a recent lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against a Sioux Falls, South Dakota Casino reveals the tension between an employer’s concern about prescription drug abuse in the workplace and complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

            According to the facts given in the lawsuit, Kim Mullaney applied for a position with Happy Jack’s Casino.  The EEOC’s lawsuit states that Mullaney had a recognized disability under the ADA involving chronic pain, and had a valid prescription for the prescription drug Hydrocodone.  Mullaney received a job offer from Happy Jack’s, but the offer was withdrawn after a routine pre-employment drug test came back positive for Hydrocodone.  According to the lawsuit, Mullaney told Happy Jack's Casino that the test reflected prescription drugs that she took for her disability, and even though she told them that she would provide additional information if needed, Happy Jack's Casino refused to hire her.  According to the Complaint:

Because [Happy Jack’s] didn’t offer Mullaney a chance to offer proof that the drugs were prescribed by a doctor for a medically-recognized condition, the company violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.  Blanket drug-testing rules that cover legally-prescribed medications do not comport with the law

            Typically, most company drug testing policies include provisions that allow employers to either disclose their legally prescribed prescription in accordance with the ADA, or to otherwise explain or contest a positive test result.  However, this lawsuit should service as a notice for employers to review their current drug testing policies.  This workplace issue is further complicated by the ongoing decriminalization of marijuana in the United States.   Approximately half the states already have legalized marijuana, for either medical or recreational use, and another eight states will be voting on the issue in November.
 

A MESSAGE TO READERS OF "THE EMPLOYEE WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO" 

 A reader of this blog asked if she could be included on an e-mail list for new posts.  I currently do not have an e-mail service but it seems like an excellent idea and I will be setting it up in the very near future.  If you would like to be included, please send your name, your company, and your e-mail to me at fijmanm@phelps.com.  Thanks! 

 



NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS UNDER ASSAULT

In my blog of May 26, 2016, I discussed a report released by the White House, highly critical of the non-compete agreements commonly used by American employers.  I noted at the time that the Administration could not take any direct action, because such agreements are governed under the individual laws of each state, and are not governed by federal law.  However, the report made it clear that the White House intended to:

[I]dentify key areas where implementation and enforcement of non-competes may present issues, examine promising practices in states, and identify the best approaches for policy reform”, suggesting plans to lobby state legislators and policymakers in the individual states.

It appears that the White House’s efforts already have borne fruit in the President’s home state of Illinois. Earlier this month, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the “Illinois Freedom to Work Act”, which will go into effect January 1, 2017.  The Act would prohibit employers from requiring employees to sign non-compete agreements if they make less than $13 per hour.  The new law is not supposed to have any effect on the enforceability of confidentiality agreements designed to protect trade secrets or other confidential business information.

The recent uproar over non-competes began over a sandwich, or more accurately, a sandwich maker.  Back in 2014, I reported how sandwich chain Jimmy John’s had attracted some unwelcome attention by requiring low-level employees to sign two-year non-compete agreements as a condition of employment.  After the story first broke nationally, Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)  and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), describing the restrictive covenants as “clearly anti-competitive and intimidating to workers.” The House Democrats asked for the FTC and the DOL to investigate the sandwich chain. 

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan upped the ante, and on June 8, 2016, filed a lawsuit against Jimmy John’s, alleging the sandwich maker’s non-compete agreements were illegal under Illinois law “[b]y locking low-wage workers into their jobs and prohibiting them from seeking better paying jobs elsewhere, the companies have no reason to increase their wages or benefits.” Under Illinois law, non-compete agreements must be premised on a legitimate business interest and narrowly tailored in terms of time, activity and place. The State of New York was apparently about to take similar legal action, however, Jimmy John’s reached an agreement in June with New York Attorney General Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, in which the sandwich chain agreed to stop including sample non-compete agreements in hiring packets it sends to its franchisees. Jimmy John’s also agreed to inform its New York franchisees that the Attorney General has concluded the non-compete agreements are unlawful and should be voided.

It bears mention that in New York and Illinois, and most other states, non-compete agreements, in of themselves, are not illegal and are enforceable under the appropriate circumstances.  The real focus here, and the basis for the hostility from elected officials, is requiring low-level and low-paid employees to sign such agreements without a legitimate business purpose.  I anticipate more states will be taking legislative action similar to the new Illinois law.

While such restrictive employment covenants are generally not favored by the courts, they will be enforced if the terms of the agreement are reasonable under the particular circumstances.  Generally, there are three requirements: (1) the employer has a valid interest to protect; (2) the geographic restriction is not overly broad; and (3) a reasonable time limit is given.  The employer bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of the agreement.  The reason these types of agreements are construed very narrowly is that most courts recognize that an employer is not entitled to protection against ordinary competition from a departing employee.  Non-compete agreements can be valuable tools to protect an employer’s legitimate business interests, but generally, it is inadvisable to have low level employees sign such agreements, because they are typically not going to possess the confidential information that would warrant enforcement of the agreement. 

In most of the matters I’ve handled involving non-compete agreements, the employees in question were either highly trained individuals in technical or creative fields, with direct access to their employer’s trade secrets, or were high level sales people with similar access to confidential customer information.  I would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario where a fast food employer would legitimately need  to have a crew worker enter into a non-compete agreement, no matter how good the sandwich.

The lesson to be learned is that the use of these agreements should be confined to key employees whose knowledge of trade secrets and other confidential information could cause serious damage if they went to work for a competitor.  In light of the recently enacted federal Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA") of 2016, businesses now have greater protection, but need to take affirmative steps as soon as possible to take advantage of all the provisions of the new law.  For more information on DTSA, see my recent article in the Mississippi Business Journal.



FIFTH CIRCUIT SLAMS THE DOOR ON CRIMINAL RECORD DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has rejected an unsuccessful job applicant’s claim that he was denied employment because of his criminal record.  The Plaintiff in Noris Rogers v. Pearland School District unsuccessfully argued that his history of felony convictions for drug offenses, including the sale of heroin, amounted to race discrimination under a disparate impact theory of liability.

In recent years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed a number of high-profile lawsuits against companies, taking the position that utilizing criminal background checks in making employment decisions may be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The stated rationale for the EEOC’s stance is that employers’ reliance on criminal records as a factor in hiring decisions disproportionately affects, or has a “disparate impact” on African-Americans and Hispanics, who statistically have higher rates of arrest and criminal conviction. 

In Rogers, the African-American Plaintiff applied for a job as a master electrician for a Texas school district.  On the application, Rogers responded “No” to all questions regarding criminal history, including whether he had ever been convicted of or pled guilty to a criminal offense, and gave his consent for a criminal background check.  The background check revealed that Rogers had multiple felony drug convictions.  When asked by the school district’s human resources director about the incorrect information, Rogers became angry, raised his voice and had to be asked to leave.  The school district later hired an African-American male for the position.

A few months later, the successful applicant resigned and the position again became available.  Rogers reapplied, this time disclosing his criminal record on the application.  The school district did not hire Rogers because of his “lack of candor” in disclosing his criminal record the first time.  In his lawsuit, Plaintiff claimed the real reason was race discrimination based on his drug arrests, and not on the fact he lied on his job application.  The Texas trial court granted the school district’s summary judgment motion, dismissing the case, and Rogers appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit.

In holding that the trial court was correct in dismissing the case, the Fifth Circuit rejected Rogers’ claim that the School District maintains a policy of “excluding from consideration for employment all persons who have been convicted of a felony.”While the Fifth Circuit noted that under the school district’s actual policy, a felony conviction would be an adverse factor in an application, it is  “not an automatic bar to employment.” In addition, the record shows that the School District follows procedures that require the opportunity for an in-person meeting with any applicant to discuss the applicant’s criminal history. The record also shows that the School District recently hired several employees who had felony and misdemeanor convictions.  The Court discounted Rogers’ comparator of a white school district employee who failed to disclose on a job application a misdemeanor charge of marihuana possession thirty years earlier.

While not discussed in detail in the Fifth Circuit’s Opinion, it appears the school district’s policy was in line with the recently updated EEOC guidelines, which put the burden on employers to develop screening guidelines to individually assess each applicant/employee to determine whether a criminal history may be used as a factor in any employment decision.  Under the EEOC’s guidelines, for an employer to avoid Title VII disparate impact liability for excluding an individual with a criminal record, the employers must show that any reliance on a criminal history is job related and consistent with business necessity.  In doing so, an employer must show that it considered three factors: (1) the nature and gravity of the offense, (2) the amount of time since the conviction, and (3) the relevance of the offense to the type of job being sought. 

The case highlights the need for employers to have such screening guidelines in place, proper documentation to support any employment decision based on a criminal history, and not to have any blanket-ban on employing individual with a criminal history.

“♫ Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign ♪”: The EEOC and DOL Sing a New Tune on Required Postings

 Those old enough  may remember the 1970 one-hit-wonder “Signs” by the rock group Five Man Electric Band, with its chorus of:

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Blockin’ out the scenery, breakin’ my mind

Do this, don’t do that, can’t you read the sign?

 In some recent announcements, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) are calling the tune on employer requirements for posting employee notices of their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)  Unlike the 1970 song, the requirements do not address a protected class of “long haired freaky people”, but do impose financial penalties for noncompliance.

Effective July 5, 2016, the EEOC’s new rule more than doubles the maximum fine against employers for not complying with the posting requirements under Title VII, the ADA and GINA.  Employers will now face a maximum penalty of $525 per violation, up from $210.  The penalty last changed in 2014, when the EEOC increased it from $110 to $220.

Under the law, employers with 15 or more employees are required to post a notice describing their rights under federal laws prohibiting job discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability, or genetic information.  These Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) posters are required to be placed in a conspicuous location in the workplace where notices to applicants and employees are customarily posted.  In addition to physically posting the notices, the EEOC encourages employers also to post similar electronic notices on their internal websites in a conspicuous location.  However, such an electronic posting does not fulfill the requirement of an actual physical posting in the workplace.  If employees do not understand or read English, the employer must provide notice in the appropriate language.

Employers frequently get themselves in trouble for perfunctorily putting these posters where they cannot be readily seen by employees, or not posting them at all.  When an EEOC investigator stops by, often the first thing they inquire about is the EEO poster, and being out of compliance is not an auspicious way to begin an EEOC investigation.  Printable posters in English and other languages are available from the EEOC website, although commercially purchased posters also will meet the requirement.

In other posting news, the DOL recently issued a new FMLA poster to replace the previous one required to be displayed by employers.  For the time being, the DOL is not requiring employers to replace their existing posters until further notice.  However, it is important that employers review their existing FMLA policies to make sure the written policies contain all of the information and requirements contained in the new poster, and if not, update them accordingly.  As with the posting requirements for the EEO posters, employers are required to post the FMLA posters in a conspicuous place in the workplace, and can face monetary fines for noncompliance.  For more detailed information, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division has put out a publication entitled The Employer’s Guide to the Family Medical Leave Act.

 



RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION….OR INFECTIOUS INSUBORDINATION?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has filed suit against a Massachusetts hospital, alleging it discriminated against an employee on the basis of religion when it fired her for not complying with a facemask requirement after she declined a flu shot for religious reasons.  EEOC v. Baystate Med. Ctr., Inc. raises unique issues of what constitutes a reasonable accommodation to religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII)”, as well as the scope of what is an undue hardship for employers, especially in the context of a health care provider.

In the federal lawsuit filed on June 2, 2016, the EEOC alleges that Baystate Medical Center fired administrative employee Stephanie Clarke after she sought a religious accommodation from the hospital’s mandatory employee immunization policy.  The hospital had an accommodation policy for employees who refused flu shots for religious reasons, which required such employees to wear a surgical facemask while at work.  The hospital suspended Clark without pay after she failed to wear the mask consistently, complaining she was not able to adequately communicate as part of her job while wearing the mask, which covered her nose and mouth.  She was told that she could not return to work until she either received an immunization or wore the mask at all times.  When Clark declined either option on the basis of a religious objection, the hospital treated her response as a job resignation.

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, and imposes on employers a proactive duty to accommodate sincerely held religious practices that may conflict with workplace practices, as long as the religious practice does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.  For purposes of religious accommodation under Title VII, undue hardship is defined by courts as a “more than de minimis” cost or burden on the operation of the employer's business. For example, if a religious accommodation would impose more than ordinary administrative costs, it would pose an undue hardship. This is a lower standard than the Americans with Disabilities Act undue hardship defense to disability accommodation.

What raises the not-so-clear issues in this lawsuit is that Clark was not a healthcare worker, but instead an administrative talent acquisition consultant, who, while she worked at the hospital, had no direct contact with patients.  In public statements, the hospital has asserted that its policy of requiring employee immunizations or alternatively, for objecting employee to wear a facemask, is a reasonable measure to ensure patient safety.  While it is anticipated the EEOC will argue that Clark’s lack of patient contact renders the hospital’s actions unreasonable, it is as likely that the hospital could argue that because of the infectious nature of the flu, a non-healthcare worker present in the hospital could infect other employees who ultimately would have contact with patients, including those with weakened immune systems.  

  

An issue that also is likely to arise is whether wearing a facemask is actually an effective reasonable accommodation for purposes of patient safety.  The federal Centers for Disease Control have noted that it is unclear how well masks work to prevent transmission of the flu, or to what extent masks actually block or filter viruses from the air.  However, some experts note that they do offer some level of protection.  As such, the case also will place before the federal court the issue of whether a healthcare facility should be given deference in determining policies for patient safety, and whether having to modify such policies constitutes an undue hardship under Title VII.

Whether Clark’s objection to flu shots is a sincerely held religious practice is unlikely to become an issue in the case.  Title VII construes religion very broadly, and in religious discrimination cases, courts are often reluctant to “play God” by deciding what is or is not a sincerely held religious belief or practice.  In the EEOC lawsuit, it infers that Clark’s objection is based on her personal interpretation of the Bible. 

However, as previously noted in The Employee with the Dragon Tattoo, despite such judicial deference, on occasion a court will find that an employee’s claimed religious practice simply does not pass the smell test.  In Copple v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Cal. Ct. App. 4^th Dist.), the California Court of Appeals has held that a prison guard’s self-created church of “Sun Worshiping Atheism” was not a protected religion, and the employer had no duty to accommodate the plaintiff’s belief in getting a full night’s sleep by waiving mandatory overtime hours.