Southwest Florida Employment Law Blog : Southwest Florida Employment and Labor Lawyers & Attorneys for Discrimination Lawsuits and Civil Rights Cases in Fort Myers, Bonita Springs & Sanibel FL

For years, college admissions officers were on safe ground when considering race as a factor in their admissions programs to promote class diversity. This may change now that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin. In Fisher, Plaintiff Abigail Fisher argues she was rejected by the school, not because of her grades or test scores, but because she is white.

In April 2003 the Court had seemingly resolved the issue in Grutter v. Bollinger. In that opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the University of Michigan Law School's compelling interest in promoting class diversity justified a race-conscious admissions process, and not an unconstitutional race-based quota system. The decision, however, left open the possibility that such programs might be unnecessary in 25 years. While universities around the country may have relied upon this decision in implementing their own affirmative action programs, the quarter century timetable may have been accelerated when Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion striking down affirmative action programs in public high schools. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Chief Justice opined that "[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is stop discriminating on the basis of race." Affirmative action proponents are concerned that the Court's more conservative make up signals an end to affirmative action and the ability to promote diversity. Critics welcome the opportunity to remove race from the admissions process.

The Court's newest Justice, Elena Kagan, will not participate in the review due to her prior involvement in the case while serving as U.S. Solicitor General. The Court is scheduled to consider the case in October, just before the 2012 elections.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Title VII, and comparable state laws, like the Florida Civil Rights Act, prohibit employer actions that have the purpose or effect of discriminating against persons because of their national origin. It is no secret that U.S. work forces are becoming increasingly more diverse. In response to the increased linguistic diversity of the workforce, many employers have implemented policies that limit or completely prohibit their employees from speaking languages other than English while at work, or take action against employees because of their foreign accent. Employers must do so with great caution and deliberation - such practices may violate the national origin protections of Title VII.

Is an English-Only Policy a Business Necessity?

The EEOC and the courts will likely look at English-only policies with skepticism, and will require the employer to justify the policy by showing that it was a "business necessity." Generally speaking, the policy should be narrowly-tailored to address specific concerns. For instance, requiring hospital healthcare workers to speak English around patients due to safety concerns is likely reasonable, but requiring that they speak English at all times, including at lunch and/or in break-room conversations, is typically unlawful.

What about accent discrimination?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion expressly recognizing "a ministerial exception," which bars "ministers" employed by faith based employers from suing for discrimination. In Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC, the Supreme Court considered the case of Cheryl Perich, an elementary teacher at a Church School. Although Perich was also a commissioned minister, the vast majority of her working time was devoted to teaching secular subjects. Perich took a six-month leave of absence from work after being diagnosed with narcolepsy. When she attempted to return to work, she was informed by her principal that the school already hired a lay teacher to fill her position. The school asked Perich to resign. She refused to quit, stating that she intended to pursue her legal rights. The Church School fired Perich for insubordination, disruptive behavior, and threatening to take legal action against the school. The EEOC sued on Perich's behalf, claiming Perich's discharge constituted unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Supreme Court held Perich's suit was barred by the "ministerial exception" created by the First Amendment religion clauses. The Court recognized the "ministerial exception" because "requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governments of the church." The Court did not decide whether the ministerial exception bars other types of employee suits, such as actions for breach of contract or torts.

The Hosanna-Tabor decision grants churches and other religious entities broad discretion in making decisions concerning the employment of their "ministers." Still, employers should still be cautious when making these types of employment decisions, even if the employer believes it will be shielded by the ministerial exemption. Remember, just because you think you have the "right" to do something, does not mean you should do it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unless you've been living under a rock this week, those in the employment law/human resources field have inevitably heard about the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case.  The decision, which was handed down Monday, reversed the Ninth Circuit's certification of a class of approximately 1.5 million female employees claiming gender-based pay/promotion discrimination.  Since I'm a couple of days behind the curve (I haven't been under a rock, just busy!), and since so much has already been written about this decision, instead of reinventing the wheel I decided to highlight points from a few of my favorite posts on the issue.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes:  What the Class-Action Decision Really Means for Employers, Dan Schwartz of the newly-revamped Connecticut Employment Law Blog gives an easy-to-understand analysis of how the decision may impact employers.  In a nutshell, Dan believes the decision stands for the proposition that a "mega-class action" will have difficulty proceeding absent a very specific and tangible policy or practice of discriminating against a particular class of workers.  He also gives a couple helpful pointers.  I couldn't agree more with his first "takeaway" -- if your company's policies and enforcement mechanisms aren't in top notch shape, fix them now! 

Charles C. Warner of Porter Wright's Employer Law Report gives a very thorough review and legal analysis of the decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes:  Supreme Court Rejects "Expansive" Gender Bias Class Action in Absence of "General Policy of Discrimination."  For those of you interested in the details of the case, including its history, procedural posture, and each side's arguments, this is the post for you.

In The 7 Key Points for Employers from the Supreme Court's Wal-Mart v. Dukes Opinion, Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer's Law Blog gives a great breakdown of important points employers should take away from the decision.  I particularly like the way he sums it up:  "Dukes means that corporate America can exhale a huge sigh of relief--a Court that has been surprisingly employee-friendly saved its biggest decision to flex its pro-business muscles."  Jon is right--this decision was a clear win for employers in a climate where employee-friendly laws and rulings are all the rage.  Even better than this quote, though, is the follow up Jon did today in the brilliantly-titled Wal-Mart v. Dukes Does Not Equal Barefoot and Pregnant.

How can you not click through to a post with that title?  In response to what some are basically calling an assault on women's rights, Jon explains,

There is no doubt that by limiting class actions, Wal-Mart was a big win for businesses. But let’s not confuse what Wal-Mart is for what it is not. It is not a death blow to women’s rights in the workplace. It will not eliminate all of the good that Title VII has done for women (and its other protected classes). It will not take us back in time to the days of June Cleaver and Harriet Nelson.

He's right (again).  I'm a woman, and I don't take offense to this decision at all (yes, yes -- I am a management-side employment lawyer, but I am still a woman, you know!).  The Supreme Court simply isn't going to allow over-zealous plaintiff lawyers to lump literally millions of people together in one action and allow them to recover damages without having to prove their own individual set of facts and damages.  Nothing in Dukes will prevent women from bringing actions for gender discrimination, and it doesn't stifle or set "us" back in any way.  Let's not get caught up in dramatics and lose sight of what the decision is versus what it is not.  To quote Jon yet again, "Such knee-jerk overreactions unnecessarily polarize us into positions that do nothing to further the debate over the real issue—eliminating workplace discrimination."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The final regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act ("ADAAA") are effective today, May 24, 2011.  As you probably know, the new regulations highlight the ADAAA's broader definition of disability.  This means more individuals with be considered disabled, thus qualifying for protection under the ADA.  The focus now will likely be on the accommodation process, instead of whether someone qualifies as disabled under the regulations.

Vicki Sproat of our office prepared a newsletter highlighting important parts of the new regulations, which we e-blasted to our subscribers last month.  If you missed it, you can download a copy here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) re-introduced the Employment Nondiscrimination Act ("ENDA") in the U.S. House of Representatives.  As you may recall, the ENDA would prohibit discrimination in employment based on an applicant's or employee's sexual orientation or gender identity.  If passed, the ENDA would create an additional protected class of employees.  Many states already have similar laws, but Florida is not one of them.

The ENDA, along with several other proposed bills, was big news back when President Obama first took office, as most experts expected the democratically-controlled Congress to institute sweeping employment law changes.  You can view one of our old newsletters on this topic here.

Fast-forward a couple of years, and Congress' landscape has already changed.  Though the ENDA has been a major priority for civil rights groups for years, and though some reports have public support of the ENDA listed as high as 90%, with Republicans in control of the House the bill isn't likely to garner much attention or support at this time.  Still, we will keep an eye on it and let you know if it does pass.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that a record number of private sector workplace discrimination charges were filed with the agency in its fiscal year 2010.  In its press release, the EEOC noted that 99,922 charges were filed, calling this figure an  "unprecedented level" of discrimination charges.  The statistics show the EEOC, through its combined enforcement, mediation, and litigation programs, secured more than $404 million in monetary benefits from employers. 

All major categories of charge filings increased last year.  Interestingly, but not surprisingly, retaliation charges surpassed race as the most frequently filed charge.  The EEOC also received 201 charges under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in its first year of enforcement.

In the press release, EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrian stated:  "Discrimination continues to be a substantial problem for too many job seekers and workers, and we must continue to build our capacity to enforce the laws that ensure that workplaces are free of unlawful bias." 

What does this mean for employers?  Ms. Berrian's statement confirms the EEOC's commitment to step up its enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.  Employers should expect the upward trend in charge filings to continue, perhaps at an even more rapid pace.  The spike in retaliation claims should be a big warning light for employers -- you MUST take special caution when handling employees who have previously complained of discrimination, harassment, or other related workplace claims.  Even if the employee does not have a valid underlying claim, the employer can serve up a retaliation claim on a silver platter if not careful.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") announced the filing of three new disability discrimination cases in a recent press release.  These cases, which were filed under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ("ADAAA"), allege discrimination against qualified individuals with diabetes, cancer, and severe arthritis.

 You should recall that the ADA was amended by the ADAAA, effective January 1, 2009.  The ADAAA clarified and expanded the definition of "disability," making it easier for people with disabilities to qualify for protection under the ADA.  I wrote a brief newsletter article in October 2008 detailing some of the changes, which you can download here. 

The new cases are among the first filed by the EEOC under the ADAAA, but employers can rest assured they will not be the last.  According to EEOC Chair Jacqueline Berrien, the EEOC wants to send a "clear message that the Commission will vigorously enforce the ADA."  The EEOC's general counsel further cautions, "Individuals with disabilities -- including serious medical conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and severe arthritis -- must be evaluated according to their qualifications, and not their disabilities."

Employers and HR professionals should take special care to ensure they fully understand the scope and breadth of the ADAAA.  If you have any doubts or questions about the definition of diability, reasonable accommodations, or anything related to the ADAAA, the best time to act is NOW -- do not wait until the EEOC comes knocking.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Department of Labor recently debuted its Disability Nondiscrimination Law Advisor, an online tool intended to help employers determine which federal disability nondiscrimination laws apply to their organization, and their responsibilities under each law.  Employers answer a series of questions about their business, then the Advisor generates a list of applicable disability nondiscrimination laws.  The Advisor also includes a "Guide to Employing People with Disabilities," which outlines resources available to help employers comply with disability nondiscrimination laws.

While it is important to note that the Advisor does not address all federal disability nondiscrimination laws, it does address many of the major federal laws, including:

• Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
• Title II, Subtitle A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
• Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (only as it pertains to federal financial assistance)
• Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
• The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended

We encourage our clients to use the Advisor as a helpful guide and good starting point for understanding these laws.  The Advisor is not, however, a substitute for legal advice on all federal, state, and/or local disability nondiscrimination laws.  Employers should consult counsel with any specific questions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link