MENU

Tag: pregnancy

Protected Status + Adverse Employment Action = Discrimination?

April 14, 2018

Often employees are convinced they are victims of discrimination at the hands of employers, through its management or supervisory staff. Often, certain issues are also clear including the employee’s membership in a protected category: Black, female, Muslim, pregnant, for instance, and the employee having experienced a specific adverse employment decision such as dismissal, failure to promote, under compensation, etc. However, it is rarely ever crystal clear that an employee can link the protected category to the adverse decision. Essentially, the employee must clearly answer the question: why, exactly, is this happening to me?

A recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which applies to Georgia, Florida and Alabama gives us a good example of the everyday behaviors at the workplace capable of answering this question: “why”.

In EEOC v Exel, the Court upheld a jury verdict awarding back pay on the finding that an employer’s policy of hiring current employees over external candidates was pretextual for sex discrimination. First, the Court accepted evidence that the policy was not mandatory nor was it uniformly applied. Thus, even though neutral on its face, the policy could be bypasssed and used as a cover for other nefarious hiring decisions. Next, the Court identified such nefarious bias (in this case it was against a woman), in the following actions of the hiring manager:

  • “limited his contact with pretty much all the females in [the] office”

  • asked another to “manage the ladies in the office.”

  • was “standoffish” with female employees

  • treated female employees differently than male employees

  • would come into work in the morning and “go straight to his office..”

  • “…wouldn’t speak to any of [the female employees].”

  • stated several times “that he would never put a woman in a management position”

The Court found this evidence is to be “sufficient to tie “generalized discriminatory behavior to the specific employment decision at issue.””

For employers, this case warns of the use of a preferential policy, even though apparently neutral, could be problematic in its day-to-day application.

For employees who think they are being discriminated against, this case gives an example of the sort of evidence required to be successful at trial.

Discrimination 101

November 30, 2017

Recently there have been a number of significant decisions regarding discrimination in the workplace highlighting the fact that preventing discrimination is a responsibility of every employer. Employers who fail to meet this challenge by failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination can be held directly responsible for discrimination or vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

What constitutes discrimination has varied by court or even by judge; however, the law is clear that employers should ensure that they do not discriminate (or allow their employees to discriminate) on the basis of the following:

  • Race
  • Nationality
  • Sex
  • Religion
  • Age
  • Disability
  • Political affiliation
  • Marital status
  • Pregnancy
  • Gender/Gender identity/Gender orientation
  • Creed

This is not an exhaustive list depending on your jurisdiction (federal, state, municipal etc.) but it covers most of the basics.

For example, in a recent case, a major rail network was held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees who had sexually harassed a female manager. The manager was subjected to having graffiti of a “particularly graphic and highly offensive nature” written about her in the men’s bathroom at work. In a further incident, a pornographic magazine was pushed under the door of her office. The female manager successfully obtained a large monetary award as a token of the employer’s failures.

Employers will be held accountable for failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment in their workplace and to address complaint of discrimination and harassment quickly and confidentially. Some of the steps that employers should take to prevent harassment and discrimination are:

  • Having comprehensive anti-discrimination policies that are committed to by all workplace stakeholders (owners, operators, managers, directors, employees and contractors)
  • Having a grievance resolution procedure that is clear and concise
  • Providing information to your employee of where they can go to get assistance outside of your workplace
  • Training all employees on what is discrimination and harassment, and what behaviors are prohibited
  • Ensuring all managers are trained on how to appropriately investigate and handle complaints
  • Making discrimination and harassment a feature of discussion at staff meetings
  • Displaying posters and notices that clearly state that harassment and discrimination will not be tolerated

Case Summary: Pregnancy Discrimination Act Protects Breastfeeding

September 27, 2017

In STEPHANIE HICKS v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA, the 11th Circuit Court held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) guarantees women the right to be free from discrimination in the workplace based on gender-specific physiological occurrences – including breastfeeding.

Stephanie Hicks brought this civil action against the Tuscaloosa Police Department under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Ms. Hicks worked first as a patrol officer and then as an investigator on the narcotics task force. When she became pregnant she requested assignments that prevented late night work and weekend work, this was granted but only after being demoted only eight days after returning from FMLA leave. Hicks overheard multiple conversations in which officers of the police department used defamatory and sexist language about her. After the baby was born, Ms. Hicks requested accommodations that would have allowed her to breastfeed in the workplace and would have excused her from duties which required wearing a vest that according to her doctor could cause a breast disease that would inhibit breastfeeding. These accommodation requests were denied.  Ms. Hicks viewed these actions as a constructive discharge and filed suit.

Ms. Hicks prevailed at a jury trial wherein she was awarded $161,319.92 plus costs and attorney fees. The City appealed but the 11th Circuit Court, of which the State of Georgia is included, affirmed the decision.

The Court stated the important legal tests as follows:

  • The PDA amended Title VII to include discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” – the ultimate question is “whether the evidence, when viewed as a whole, yields the reasonable inference that the employer engaged in the alleged discrimination.

  • Under the FMLA the ultimate questions are whether: “(1)Hicks availed herself of a protected right under the FMLA; (2) [s]he suffered an adverse employment decision; and (3) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment decision.

In application of these tests to the facts as summarized above, the Court concluded there was ample evidence that Hicks was both discriminated against on the basis of her pregnancy and that she was retaliated against for taking her FMLA leave. Furthermore, the Court found that the PDA covers discrimination against breastfeeding mothers and the City’s failure to accommodate Hicks’s requests, when it allowed accommodations to others similarly situated, constituted discriminatory constructive discharge, in violation of the PDA.