Employment Discrimination

Christian Campus Ministry Allowed to Terminate Employee for Marital Problems, Sixth Circuit Says

August 12, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

Most employers and employees are aware that churches may legally make certain hiring and firing decisions that would otherwise be impermissible if the employer were not a religious institution. But what about religion-related employers that are not churches or church-based entities? In a very noteworthy case for Tennessee employers and employees, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an entity dedicated to collegiate campus ministry could terminate a “spiritual director” for failing to repair her failing marriage.

The case arose after InterVarsity Christian Fellowship terminated Alyce Conlon in 2011. Conlon had worked as a spiritual director for the evangelical entity since 2004, but in 2011, she confided in her supervisors that she and her husband were contemplating divorcing. The fellowship put her on leave for the purpose of working to salvage her marriage. By December, with the employee’s marriage still on the rocks, InterVarsity terminated Conlon. Conlon’s husband filed for divorce a month later.

Eleventh Circuit Decides Employer Lacked Knowledge of Employee’s Disability

August 5, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A nursing home employee, who was pursuing her employer for multiple forms of discrimination and retaliation, lost in her effort to revive her disability discrimination claim on appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that an employer’s mere knowledge that an employee had visited a doctor and that the doctor had advised the patient she could not return to work “until further notice” was not enough to prove that the employer knew the employee had a disability.

The employee, Portia Surtain, worked at Hamlin Place of Boynton Beach, a nursing home in South Florida. During her employment, Surtain submitted a request for medical leave. The employer, aware that Surtain had visited a doctor for “unknown health reasons” and that the doctor had advised her to stay away from work until further notice, terminated the employee.

Woman Wins Workplace Discrimination Action in US Supreme Court After Her Muslim Attire Clashed With Company Dress Code

July 22, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

In an important ruling on what federal law requires of employers when it comes to accommodation of religious practice, the US Supreme Court ruled that a retail clothing store impermissibly discriminated against a Muslim teen when it decided that her hijab violated its company dress code and refused to hire her. The ruling makes clear that employers cannot violate the law even if employees do not explicitly ask for accommodations of their religious practice and even if the employer does not know (but merely suspects) that an employee will need an accommodation, as long as that religion-based accommodation was a motive in the employer’s action.

Samantha Elauf, when she was 17, did what many teens do. She went to a local shopping mall and applied for a sales job. In Elauf’s case, her targeted employer was an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At her employment interview, the teen wore a black head scarf. She did not state why she wore the piece, and the employer did not ask.

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Georgia Employee’s Race and Age Discrimination Claims

March 11, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a Georgia employee’s lawsuit that alleged unlawful race and age discrimination. The plaintiff asserted that he was fired from his job because of his race and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“the Act”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The employer, a company that made and shipped water treatment chemicals, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff was fired for his on-the-job performance. The trial court granted the motion, and, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of many personal characteristics, including race. Under the Act, an employer with 15 or more employees may not fire an employee because of his or her race. Similarly, the ADEA prohibits discrimination against employees who are at least 40 years old.

Tennessee Staffing Agency and Recycling Center Sued by EEOC for Alleged Disability Discrimination

March 4, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued a Tennessee staffing agency and an international recycling company with a facility in Tennessee over alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The action was based on the defendants’ treatment of a deaf employee. The plaintiff sought temporary employment through the staffing agency and was assigned to work at the recycling center. However, the plaintiff suffered from a hearing impairment disability, and once the defendants learned of the disability, the complaint alleges that the defendants informed her that she could no longer work there.

The ADA protects employees with a recognized disability from discrimination in the workplace. It is a federal law that applies to most employers with more than 15 employees in Tennessee, Georgia, and the rest of the United States.

Tennessee Employer Did Not Unlawfully Discriminate Against Prospective Employee Who Refused to Provide Social Security Number on Religious Grounds

February 25, 2015 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A recent Sixth Circuit holding affirmed a federal district court’s ruling that an employer did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by declining to hire a prospective employee because he refused to provide his social security number on religious grounds.

The plaintiff applied for an internship with the defendant, an energy company. However, he refused to provide his potential employer with a social security number. The plaintiff asserted that he did not have a social security number because he disavowed it upon turning 18 due to his sincere religious beliefs. When the defendant refused to hire him, he filed suit alleging religious discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a valid legal claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The district court granted the motion.

A person who files a Civil Rights Act religious discrimination claim must prove three elements:

There was an employment requirement that conflicts with a genuine religious belief held by the plaintiff;
The plaintiff advised the employer of the belief; and
The employer terminated or disciplined the plaintiff for refusing to comply with the employment requirement.

A Look at Recent Title VII Decisions

December 10, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

A broad set of protections, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on a number of factors, including race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Over the past 50 years, courts and lawmakers have dedicated a lot of time to tweaking the law and figuring out how to apply it to situations that may be completely unique or reflective of society’s ever-evolving norms.

Recent months have proved to be no exception, with a number of continuing legal challenges arising under Title VII further defining the breadth and boundaries of the protection it offers. Around the country and even up to the US Supreme Court, Title VII litigation is making for some interesting decisions and debates. Here are some of the more noteworthy questions and revelations of late:

Volunteers aren’t entitled to Title VII protections from employment discrimination

This might strike some as obvious, since the very notion that one is a volunteer rather than a paid employee should be enough to draw a distinction. Numerous other recent suits brought by interns and independent contractors looking to confer employee status upon themselves, however, have blurred the lines more than before. As in those cases, a big question for the Sixth Circuit in Sister Michael Marie v. American Red Cross was the amount of control exercised over the means and manner of the volunteers’ performance.

Employment Law Cases Worth Watching at the Supreme Court

November 19, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

The US Supreme Court reconvened last month with this term’s docket including several employment law cases, some that might even make for major changes from business as usual. Considering that about 10,000 cases seek review by the Supreme Court, which has great discretion over which ones it will hear, and only about 80 actually make it to oral arguments in the October-through-June term, it’s significant when employment law cases account for about 10% of the roster.

Most prominently among the employment law cases is Young v. United Parcel Service, which will look at whether pregnant employees are entitled to accommodations with work restrictions if similar accommodations are being offered to non-pregnant employees. It’s a test of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and whether a pregnant employee seeking accommodations should be given the same consideration as a UPS employee injured on the job or one who’s protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Regular pregnancies aren’t considered disabilities.)

Rights and Risks When it Comes to Pregnant Employees

October 22, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

With perks like arcades, ball pits, laundry services, round-the-clock meals, and pretty much anything else it takes to coddle energetic young employees not quite ready to assume full adulthood, Silicon Valley firms are legendary for offering workers anything it takes to keep them at their desks instead of tending to an outside life. The latest entry in the “They get what?” panoply of benefits for high-tech workers is egg freezing, currently at Apple and Facebook and, presumably, to be adopted by more companies if it proves popular. While it’s being touted as a generous perk worth around $20,000, there’s no shortage of fierce criticism that it’s simply a manipulative way to extract longer, more focused efforts from younger employees the companies don’t want to see distracted by families and greater work-life balance. (It’s worth noting that, in some cases, the offer is extended to spouses of employees, so it’s not just the female workers who are affected by the new benefit).

While the debate about whether such a program assists or coerces delayed family planning is new enough that it should provide plenty of back and forth for quite some time, a much more established consideration for women of childbearing age is how a pregnancy would affect their jobs. Despite some longstanding laws designed to protect pregnant workers’ livelihoods, there is often a good deal of confusion for both them and their employers regarding rights and obligations.

Georgia Still Waiting for Governor Deal to Ban the Box

August 18, 2014 | Parks, Chesin & Walbert

After disappearing from his website earlier this month, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal’s executive orders are back online. Among the routine list of dozens of appointees to various boards and commissions, many had hoped to see the long-rumored “ban-the-box” order that would help remove employment barriers for convicted criminals who have served their time. Unfortunately for those hoping for the change, it looks like the wait will be a little longer. The good news for them, however, is that a growing movement of both public and private employers across the country is pushing to eliminate a major hurdle for many people trying to re-enter the workforce.

Anyone who’s filled out an employment application has encountered the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony (or crime)?” Check the ‘NO’ box and the application gets judged on other merits. But check the ‘YES’ box and, in most situations, the further explanation had better be compelling to hold the hiring manager’s attention, that is if they haven’t already decided to pass on the applicant. The ban-the-box movement sees this question as unnecessarily prejudicial, effectively making convicted felons unemployable long after they’ve paid their debts to society.

Back in the spring, Governor Deal said the details were being worked out for an executive order to ban the box from applications for state jobs. This would make the State of Georgia the latest in a substantial list of employers who have broken down the barrier, like Target, Walmart, and Bed Bath & Beyond–as well as more than 60 cities and counties across the nation, including Atlanta and Memphis. Of course, masked in this movement is that, at its core, ban-the-box is as much about fair hiring practices as it is about helping to reduce crime, since Bureau of Justice statistics show two-thirds of released prisoners will be arrested for another crime within three years, and three-quarters will be re-arrested within five years. The ban-the-box notion is straightforward. If former convicts can’t find work, they’ll have little choice but to revert to criminal activity, so let’s give them a chance to go straight.