Employment Discrimination

Employer’s Demand of Psych Exam for Nurse Did Not Trigger ADA Violation, Sixth Circuit Rules

April 20, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Dealing with an employee who may have psychological issues, such as possible suicidal thoughts, can be a tricky issue for an employer. The employer has an obligation to protect the well-being of its other employees, but it also needs to ensure that it does not discriminate against the employee who may have a recognized disability. A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of an Ohio employer in an Americans With Disabilities Act case offers some helpful insight for Tennessee employers facing this situation.

Peggy Barnum worked for The Ohio State University Medical Center as a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA). Her employment was without major incident for five years until major personal problems struck. In 2011, Barnum’s marriage ended in divorce, and her daughter was prosecuted for criminal violations. These issues bled over into her work, where the nurse allegedly opined, among other things, that “maybe I should put a gun to my head,” and “maybe I should do everybody a favor and not be around.” Barnum’s emotional problems were also affecting her work, where her level of focus was noted to be deficient.

Employee’s Conduct Caused Breakdown in Interactive Process, Defeat in 11th Circuit ADA Case

April 13, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A new ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals offers some encouragement for employers and useful knowledge for employees. The recent decision made it clear that, in disability discrimination cases, the obligation to engage in an interactive process requires each side to interact meaningfully with the other. In this case, a disabled employee’s failure to participate in the process in a good-faith manner ultimately doomed her Americans With Disabilities Act violation claim against her employer.

The employee in the case was Kimberly Agee, a worker in Mercedes Benz U.S. International, Inc.’s auto assembly plant in northern Alabama. After breast cancer surgery, Agee developed pain in her arm, and, as a result, her doctor placed her on a 15-pound lifting restriction. The employer moved Agee around to various jobs in the auto shop that accommodated her lifting restriction.

Dual Theories of Employee’s Misconduct Doesn’t Prove Employer Discriminated, 11th Circuit Rules

April 6, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case is helpful in instructing how far an employer must go in stating why it chose to terminate an employee on Family and Medical Leave Act leave. Even though the employer in the recent case only narrowed its reasons down to two mutually exclusive ones, its good-faith investigation established a reasonable basis for concluding that the employee committed one of the two misdeeds, and, since either was enough to warrant termination, the employer’s action did not violate the law.

The events that happened to Kimberly Thomas that triggered this case were, in some ways, not uncommon. Thomas, a manager at a Dollar General store in Alabama, was terminated in the wake of a robbery at her store. The robbery had yielded an investigation by Thomas’ superiors and questions regarding two store employees’ completion of a mandatory online class regarding robbery prevention. The employer concluded that Thomas either took the course exam for the employees or made the employees take the test “off the clock.” Either way, the employer reasoned that Thomas had violated company policy and ended her employment.

11th Circuit Says Employer Not Required to Adopt Reporter’s Suggested Disability Accommodations

March 24, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

When an employee sues her employer for disability discrimination, there are several things she needs to prove in order to succeed. One of these things relates to the employer’s obligation regarding accommodations, and how far the employer must go to accommodate the employee. In a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case touching upon this issue, the ruling went against the employee because the accommodations the employee presented were not things the law required the employer to do.

Michaelene Tetteh was an award-winning journalist for WAFF-TV Channel 48 in Huntsville, Alabama. Although she worked as a sports anchor, reporter, and photographer, her achievements went beyond sports — she picked up an Alabama Associated Press award in 2008 for a series she did regarding the fight against sex trafficking, for example. Unfortunately, her career took a detour a year later when, while filming the action at basketball game, she suffered a significant shoulder injury after a player crashed into her.

New 6th Circuit Ruling and its Impact on Disparate Discipline Cases in Tennessee

March 17, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent case from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals offers an informative ruling on another variation of a similar theme for the court. The court previously addressed the issue of differing discipline as the basis for a discrimination case in the context of two employees involved in the same incident. In this newest case with the potential to impact Tennessee employers and employees, the issue was differing discipline in separate but similar instances. In this case, the court decided that a female employee should be allowed to pursue her sex discrimination case after showing that she was fired for making the same (or equally severe) mistake as other male coworkers who were not terminated for their offenses.

The employee, Karon Jackson, worked as a mental health technician (MHT) at Detroit Receiving Hospital’s Mental Health Crisis Center. MHTs were responsible for assisting registered nurses with the patient discharge process by collecting paperwork and the patient’s personal effects. At the process’s conclusion, MHTs were also charged with physically transporting the patient out of the center. Workers were required to check the patient’s wristband to make certain that the correct patient was getting discharged.

New 11th Circuit Decision Changes the Way Some Discrimination Cases Will Be Decided in Georgia

March 10, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An important new decision handed down last month by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals stands to be a “game changer” for some employment discrimination cases that will be decided by federal courts in Georgia. The appeals court’s rejection of the old methodology for deciding if an employer had violated the law now means that employees could potentially have an easier time getting past the summary judgment phase of a case, making it to trial, and winning. Under the new rule, in cases in which the employer had both legal and illegal motivations for acting, all the employee must show to succeed is that the employer took an adverse employment action and that the employee’s membership in a protected class was a motivating factor in the action.

The case that led to this ruling was Quigg v. Thomas County School District. The employee, Linda Quigg, was the superintendent of public schools in Thomas County, Georgia, from 2007-11. After the local school board voted 5-2 not to renew her contract in 2011, Quigg launched a legal action, asserting that she was the victim of sex discrimination and retaliation. Quigg offered evidence that, during her tenure, some board members made statements that indicated an anti-female gender bias. Additionally, however, the board had evidence that some members legitimately disapproved of Quigg’s on-the-job performance, and some of Quigg’s evaluations indicated legitimate performance-based concerns.

Sixth Circuit Ruling Raises Warning to Tennessee Employers When it Comes to Handing out Disparate Discipline

February 3, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

As an employer, investigating employee misconduct and assessing proper punishment to each employee involved in breaking the rules is often complicated. It is very important to complete this task carefully and meticulously, though, especially if one the employees involved is a member of a protected class. In the case of one bank, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that its decision to punish an African-American employee involved in a workplace fight more harshly than the white employee involved in the same fight may constitute racial discrimination. The unfavorable ruling for this employer highlights the potential pitfalls that can await employers that issue different punishments to employees involved in similar misdeeds, especially when the employees are of different races, genders, religions, and so on.

The case began with a verbal disagreement between Curtis Wheat and Brad Hatfield, two male co-workers at Fifth Third Bank. The disagreement escalated into an argument and eventually a physical fight. After the event, the bank sent Michelle Healy, an employee relations consultant, to interview both of the men. An angry Wheat told Healy that he would “take care of [the problem with Hatfield] myself” and “Monday is going to be a big day,” but he refused to elaborate further.

Georgia Transgender and Homosexual Workers and 2016 Employment Discrimination Cases in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

January 27, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Two Georgia women, who lost their jobs and subsequently launched Title VII sex discrimination cases against their former employers, ultimately took their cases all the way to the federal 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to defend their positions. These two cases, one of which was decided in mid-January and one of which remains pending, offer some important insight into the state of federal sex discrimination law and the changes that could soon take place.

The recently decided case involved an auto mechanic from Cobb County. When Credit Nation Auto Sales hired the mechanic, the mechanic identified publicly as a man named Louie Chavez. In 2009, Chavez began transitioning from male to female and began going by the name Jennifer Chavez. Chavez’s supervisor expressed unease about the mechanic’s decision, fearing that the mechanic would negatively affect business.

Lack of Proof that Employer Knew About Employee’s Disability Dooms ADA Case

January 20, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

An Ohio man, who had a disability that affected his ability to stoop, bend, and twist, could not pursue an Americans With Disabilities Act case against the employer that terminated him. The law required the employee to show that the party that decided to terminate him knew about the disability. In this case, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers not only Ohio but also Tennessee, decided that the employee lacked this necessary evidence establishing knowledge, and so his case was properly decided by the trial court in favor of the employer.

The employee, Michael Arthur, was a man who was born with spina bifida occulta, which is a birth defect that causes a malformed spinal cord. In 2002, three years after Arthur began working for American Showa, Inc., the man underwent surgery to fuse some of his spinal discs. Even after the surgery, the employee continued to have problems and took FMLA leave in 2003 due to his back.

11th Circuit Rules that Replacing an Employee in His 40s with Another in His 40s Can Still Possibly Be Age Discrimination

January 6, 2016 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A Florida man should not have had his age discrimination case thrown out, even though both he and his replacement were both in their 40s. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to reverse a summary judgment in favor of the man’s employer, stating that an age discrimination case requires only a “substantially younger” replacement and that the employee’s allegation that age bias was the reason the employer replaced him with a man seven years his junior was enough to meet this “substantially younger” standard.

The employee, Robert Liebman, had worked for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company for 28 years when MetLife fired him in 2013. He started in 1985 as a sales representative and, by 2013, had risen to the position of Managing Director of the insurer’s West Palm Beach and Boca Raton offices. At the time of his termination, Liebman was 49 years old. Liebman sued MetLife for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The employer asked the trial court to grant summary judgment in its favor on the age discrimination claim, noting that the employee that it selected to replace Liebman was also over 40 years of age and, therefore, a member of the same protected class as Liebman. The trial court sided with the employer and issued a summary judgment order in favor of the insurer.