Posts Tagged: coffield law

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan: EPA Law Requires Equal Pay for Equal Work

In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974), the Supreme Court addressed the allocation of proof in pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. This was the first Supreme Court decision applying the Equal Pay Act. The Court held that to prevail on an EPA claim, the plaintiff must prove that the employer pays an employee of the one sex more than it pays an employee of the other sex for substantially equal work. The opinion addressed what it meant for two employees to perform “substantially equal work” for the purposes of the Equal Pay Act, including what it means for work to be performed under “similar working conditions.” 

Facts

Corning was a glassworks company. It employed night shift inspectors and day shift inspectors at its plants. For many years, Corning allowed only men to work the night shift, and it paid night shift inspectors more than it paid the day shift inspectors, who were women. In June 1966, three years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, Corning began opening the night shift jobs to women, allowing female employees to apply for the higher-paid night inspection jobs on an equal seniority basis with men.  

In January 1969, Corning implemented a new “job evaluation” system for setting wage rates. Under that pay system, all subsequently-hired inspectors were to receive the same base wage (which was higher than the previous night shift rate) regardless of sex or shift. With respect to employees hired before the new pay system went into effect, however, the pay plan provided that those employees who worked the night shift would continue to receive a higher (“red circle”) rate. Because of this “red circle” rate, the new pay system perpetuated the previous difference in base pay between day and night inspectors, thereby also perpetuating the previous disparity in pay between female (day) inspectors and male (night) inspectors. 

The Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from paying different wages to employees of opposite sexes “for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions,” except where the difference in payment is made pursuant to a seniority or merit system or one measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or where the differential is “based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)

The Secretary of Labor brought suit, asserting that Corning’s pay practices violated the EPA by paying male and female inspectors differently for equal work. 

The Court’s Decision

The Court addressed the question of whether Corning’s pay practices violated the EPA by paying different wages to employees of opposite sexes for “equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions[.]” The Court found that they did. 

First, the Court held that Corning’s pay practices from the passage of the EPA in 1963 to June 1966 violated the EPA, because during that period the night shift inspectors (all male) were paid more than the day shift inspectors (female) and the night shift and day shift inspectors performed equal work “under similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Corning argued the difference between working at night and working at day meant the different positions did not entail similar working conditions. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the EPA’s legislative history established that the statutory term “working conditions,” as used in the EPA, encompasses only physical surroundings and hazards, and not the time of day worked. 417 U.S. 197-204.

Corning also argued that the pre-1966 pay disparity was lawful because the higher pay to (male) night inspectors was intended as additional compensation for the inconvenience of night work, and thus the pay disparity was based on a “factor other than sex[.]” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). The Court rejected this argument, holding the evidence showed the pay disparity in fact arose because men would not work for the low rates paid to women inspectors. The pay disparity therefore “reflected a job market in which Corning could pay women less than men for the same work.” 417 U.S. 204-05.

Second, the Court held that Corning did not remedy its violation of the EPA in June 1966 simply by permitting women to work as night shift inspectors, because the violation could only be cured by increasing the base wages of female day inspectors to meet the higher rates paid to night inspectors. Corning’s action in allowing women to work the night shift did not accomplish this, as “Corning’s action still left the inspectors on the day shift — virtually all women — earning a lower base wage than the night shift inspectors because of a differential initially based on sex and still not justified by any other consideration[.]” 417 U.S. 207-08. In effect, “Corning was still taking advantage of the availability of female labor to fill its day shift at a differentially low wage rate not justified by any factor other than sex.” Id. Thus, Corning’s allowing women to work the night shift, without increasing base pay to the female day shift workers, did not remedy the EPA violation. 

Finally, the Court held the Corning did not remedy its violation of the EPA in January 1969 with its pay plan equalizing day and night inspector rates, because the plan’s higher “red circle” rate paid to employees who previously worked the night shift only perpetuated the previous unlawful pay disparity. This was because the previously-hired male night shift workers would receive the higher red circle rate based on their pre-1969 pay — before day and night wage rates were equalized. Thus, the pay plan had the unlawful effect of continuing the pay disparity between men and women for equal work. As the Court observed, “the company’s continued discrimination in base wages between night and day workers, though phrased in terms of a neutral factor other than sex, nevertheless operated to perpetuate the effects of the company’s prior illegal practice of paying women less than men for equal work.” 417 U.S. 209-10.

Analysis

This case was important because it marked the first time the Supreme Court addressed the requirements of the Equal Pay Act. The Court held that to prevail on an EPA claim, the plaintiff must prove that the employer pays an employee of one sex more than it pays an employee of the other sex for substantially equal work. The opinion addressed what it meant for two employees to perform “substantially equal work” for the purposes of the EPA, and held that the requirement for work to be performed under “similar working conditions” referred to physical surroundings and hazards, and not the time of day worked. If a male employee and a female employee perform equal work at different times of the day, they should therefore be given equal pay — unless the pay disparity is based on a seniority or merit system or one measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or where the differential is “based on any other factor other than sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). If an employer’s pay practices violate the EPA, the only way to cure the violation is to equalize wages between men and women — simply offering women the same job titles is not sufficient. And pay systems that have the effect of perpetuating prior discrimination may still violate the EPA — even if the pay system is neutrally-worded and made without intent to discriminate. 

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: Sexual Harassment is Unlawful Discrimination

In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. 

As discussed in an earlier post, Title VII protects employees from workplace discrimination “because of” sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).

Meritor Savings Bank addressed the question of whether Title VII prohibits employers from creating a sexually “hostile environment” or only prohibited tangible economic discrimination, like terminations and demotions.

The Court held, inter alia, that “hostile environment” sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII. Id. at 63-69. This is because the language of Title VII is not limited to “economic” or “tangible” discrimination, like a termination resulting in wage loss. Therefore, sexual harassment leading to purely non-economic injury (like emotional distress) can violate Title VII. 

Facts

In 1974, Meritor Savings Bank hired Vinson as a teller. Her supervisor was a man named Sidney Taylor. Vinson testified that Taylor subsequently invited her out to dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sex. At first, she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. According to Vinson, Taylor thereafter repeatedly demanded sexual favors from her, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours. She estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times. In addition, Vinson testified that Taylor fondled her in front of other employees, followed her into the women’s restroom when she went there alone, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her on several occasions. Taylor denied all this. The District Court found that any sexual relationship between Vinson and Taylor was a voluntary one. 

In her suit against Taylor and the bank, Vinsom claimed that during her four years at the bank she had constantly been subjected to “sexual harassment” by Taylor in violation of Title VII. She sought injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank, and attorney’s fees.

The Court’s Decision

Meritor Savings Bank raised the question of whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based “discrimination” prohibits employers from creating a sexually “hostile environment” or was limited to a prohibition on tangible economic discrimination, like terminations and demotions.

The Court held that “hostile environment” sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII. Id. at 63-69. This is because the language of Title VII is not limited to “economic” or “tangible” discrimination, like a termination resulting in wage loss. Therefore, consistent with EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII, sexual harassment leading to purely non-economic injury (like emotional distress) can violate Title VII.

In so holding, the Court emphasized the purpose of Title VII: “Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult whether based on sex, race, religion, or national origin. 477 U.S. at 65. Citing the EEOC’s guidelines on sex discrimination, the Court held that an employee may establish a violation of Title VII “by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” Id

The Court quoted the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 902 (11th Cir. 1982), which compared sex-based harassment to racial harassment:

Sexual harassment which creates a hostile or offensive environment for members of one sex is every bit the arbitrary barrier to sexual equality at the workplace that racial harassment is to racial equality. Surely, a requirement that a man or woman run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and made a living can be as demeaning and disconcerting as the harshest of racial epithets.

477 U.S. at 67. The Court went on to hold that for harassment to violate Title VII, it must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [the victim’s] employment and create an abusive working environment.'” Id. (quoting Henson at 904).

The Court further held that “voluntariness” in the sense that an employee was not forced to participate in sexual conduct against her will, is no defense to a sexual harassment claim. The District Court had therefore erroneously focused on the “voluntariness” of Vinson’s participation in the claimed sexual episodes. In a sexual harassment case, the correct inquiry is whether the employee by her conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome, not whether her participation in them was voluntary. 477 U.S. at 67-68. The Court further held that while evidence of an employee’s sexually provocative speech or dress may be relevant in determining whether she found particular advances unwelcome, such evidence should be admitted with caution in light of the potential for unfair prejudice. Id. at 69.

Analysis

Meritor Savings Bank marked the first time the Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for sexual harassment. The decision also clarified that sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VI. The case is also notable for questioning whether sexual conduct between a supervisor and a subordinate could truly be voluntary due to the power dynamics and hierarchical relationship between supervisors and subordinates.

Here’s a link to a contemporaneous 1986 New York Times article about the case and its significance.

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Successor Liability for Employment Claims

In employment law, successor liability addresses the situation where one company violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (or other federal employment laws) by subjecting an employee to harassment or discrimination, then that company is sold to a second company before

the harassment or discrimination can be remedied. Under some circumstances, that second company can be held liable for the first company’s violations of Title VII — even though the second company did not itself subject the employee to harassment or discrimination.

Courts have emphasized the importance of successor liability in fulfilling Title VII’s remedial purposes. Successor liability under Title VII is an “equitable doctrine … addressing a particular problem of employment discrimination: ‘Failure to hold a successor employer liable for the discriminatory practices of its predecessor could emasculate the relief provisions of Title VII by leaving the discriminatee without a remedy or with an incomplete remedy.’” EEOC v. Phase 2 Investments Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 550, 569  (D. Md. 2018) (quoting EEOC v. MacMillan Bloedel Containers, Inc., 503 F.2d 1086, 1091 (6th Cir. 1974)

Therefore, courts may impose liability on a successor company even though it had little relationship to the first company and purchased the first company’s assets without agreeing to take responsibility for the first company’s liabilities to its employees. “Successor liability is liberally imposed.” Fennell v. TLB Plastics Corp., No. 84 Civ. 8775, 1989 WL 88717, *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 1989) (citing Fall River Dyeing & Finishing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27 (1987) (finding successor liability (in the labor law context) where the successor changed marketing and sales, did not assume liabilities or trade name, hired employees through newspaper ads rather than from predecessor’s employment records, and seven months had passed between predecessor’s demise and successor’s start up) (emphasis added).

In determining whether successor liability in the Title VII context is appropriate, courts often look to nine equitable factors set forth in the Sixth Circuit’s decision in MacMillan:

1) whether the successor company had notice of the charge, 2) the ability of the predecessor to provide relief, 3) whether there has been a substantial continuity of business operations, 4) whether the new employer uses the same plant, 5) whether he uses the same or substantially the same work force, 6) whether he uses the same or substantially the same supervisory personnel, 7) whether the same jobs exist under substantially the same working conditions, 8) whether he uses the same machinery, equipment and methods of production and 9) whether he produces the same product.

Phase 2, 310 F. Supp. 3d at 570 (quoting MacMillan, 503 F.2d at 1094).

Factors 4-9 are essentially subsets of the “continuity of business operations” factor. The equitable test, then, “really comes down to three major factors: whether a successor had notice, whether a predecessor had the ability to provide relief, and the continuity of the business[.]” Phase 2, 310 F. Supp. 3d at 570 (internal quotes and citations omitted). Many cases in this area turn on a debate as to the first factor: whether the successor company had notice of an employee’s claims against a predecessor company.

Constructive Notice Through Due Diligence

Importantly, for the purposes of successor liability, “notice” can be constructive notice. “Constructive notice is information or knowledge of a fact imputed by law to a person … because he could have discovered the fact by proper diligence, and his situation was such as to cast upon him the duty of inquiring into it.” EEOC v. 786 South LLC, 693 F.Supp.2d 792, 795 (W.D. Tenn. 2010) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 1062 (6th ed. 1990)). 

This means a successor company might be liable for a predecessor’s Title VII violations, even though the second company did not actually know about the violations before the sale, because the second company could have learned about the violations by exercising a little diligence. For example, in Lyles v. CSRA Inc., No. GJH-18-973, 2018 WL 6423894, *4 n3 (D. Md. Dec. 4, 2018), the court found sufficient notice for successor liability where “the record includes evidence of the lengthy due diligence process, meaning a jury could conclude that [the buyers] had constructive notice of the charges.”) Similarly, in 786 South LLC, 693 F.Supp.2d at 795, the court held a successor liable even though it had no actual notice because “constructive notice may suffice under the successor liability doctrine, at least where the relevant charges have been filed with the EEOC”). Likewise, in Lipscomb v. Techs., Servs., & Info., Inc., No. CIV.A. DKC-09-3344, 2011 WL 691605, *9 (D. Md. Feb. 18, 2011) the court imposed liability on a successor defendant even though it had no actual notice of the Title VII violations, because “Defendant could have acquired notice of the EEOC complaint prior to purchasing the MDEBEP subcontract at APG with some due diligence and inquiry.” (emphasis added).

See also Phase 2, 310 F. Supp. 3d at 570 (“At the very least, Maritime had constructive notice…the lengths to which Mister went to protect itself from liability, such as structuring the sale as an asset purchase, inquiring into Maritime’s liabilities, listing the assumed liabilities in a schedule, and including an indemnification clause, actually demonstrate the fairness of holding Mister liable as a successor.”); NLRB v. South Harlan Coal, Inc., 844 F.2d 380, 385 (6th Cir. 1988) (citing Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 172-74 (1973) for the principle that “knowledge of unfair labor practice litigation need not be actual, but may be inferred from the circumstances.”); EEOC v. Vucitech, 842 F.2d 936, 945 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding successor liable because, inter alia, it had at least constructive knowledge of discrimination charges); Scott v. Sopris Imports Ltd., 962 F. Supp. 1356, 1359–60 (D. Colo. 1997) (recognizing constructive notice is sufficient under MacMillan).

Constructive Notice Through Common Managers

Typically, constructive notice exists where a potential Title VII violation has been documented with the first company, meaning that the purchasing company has the ability to learn of the claim through by exercising pre-sale due diligence. Constructive notice, in this context, therefore turns on the purchasing company’s ability to acquire notice of a legal claim through “due diligence.” See, e.g., Lipscomb, 2011 WL 691605 at *8 (“As to the notice issue, lack of timely knowledge of a pending EEOC investigation does not per se bar successor liability… With some due diligence, Defendant would have been able to ascertain that Plaintiff had filed an EEOC charge[.]”)

Alternatively, constructive notice may exist where the predecessor’s high level managers, having personal knowledge of an employee’s discrimination claims, then become managers for the successor. See, e.g., EEOC v. Sage Realty Corp., 507 F. Supp. 599, 612 (S.D.N.Y.), decision supplemented, 521 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (“Palumbo, who was president of [predecessor] Monahan Cleaners, is now a full-time consultant to [successor] Monahan Building, overseeing the operation of Monahan Building’s business and supervising Monahan Building’s employees. Monahan Building had constructive notice of Hasselman’s charge of sex discrimination through Palumbo.”)

In sum, Title VII successor liability is an important equitable doctrine because it protects employees who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination in the event the guilty employer sells its assets before the employee can obtain relief. Successor employers have the ability to learn about potential employee claims before completing a purchase, and use that information to negotiate a lower purchase price. The end result is to protect the relief provisions of Title VII and the employees they cover.  

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Protecting Employees from Race, Sex, Religion, and National Origin Discrimination

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law enacted to prevent discrimination based on an individual’s race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of the 1964 protects individuals against discrimination in employment. Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate against employees or job applicants based on characteristics such as race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. Title VII also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who participate in complaints or investigations of discrimination, or who otherwise oppose various kinds of discrimination. These provisions apply to all employers in both the private and public sectors, including federal, state, and local governments, that employ 15 or more individuals. In general, Title VII protects employees from discrimination or retaliation in a wide variety of employment processes and circumstances, including:

Recruiting
Hiring
Promoting
Training
Transferring
Disciplining
Discharging
Assigning work
Measuring performance
Providing benefits

Under Title VII, covered employees or job applicants cannot cannot be treated differently based on their race, religion, sex, or national origin. Additionally, the law provides that employers cannot discriminate against other employees because of their association with co-workers who may be discriminated against based on these protected characteristics. An employer’s policies and practices may be considered discriminatory under Title VII based on disparate treatment or disparate impact. Disparate treatment typically involves an employer’s intentional discrimination against an employee based on his or her protected characteristics. Disparate impact, by contrast, does not necessarily require discriminatory intent. Rather, under a disparate impact theory, an employer’s policy or practice might run afoul of Title VII if it disproportionately harms employees of certain gender or race (for example) as compared to other employees of a different gender or race — regardless of whether the employer intended the policy or practice to have a discriminatory effect.

Title VII is one of several laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is a government agency responsible for enforcing and investigating potential violations of federal laws against discrimination in the workplace. These laws include not only Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but also the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), and Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In general, laws enforced by the EEOC make it illegal for an employer to harass or discriminate against an employee or applicant based on race, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Additionally, these laws prohibit employers from discriminating against employees who file charges of discrimination with the EEOC or who participate in a discrimination lawsuit or investigation.

An employee who believes his or her rights under Title VII have been violated must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC in order to later pursue a Title VII claim in court. Once a charge is filed with the EEOC, the agency is authorized to investigate the complaint against the employer. As noted above, Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees or applicants because they have filed a charge with the EEOC, participated in the investigation of a charge, or otherwise opposed conduct made unlawful by Title VII. If after its investigation the agency finds the employer engaged in illegal discrimination, it may attempt to settle the charge between the employee and employer. If unable to settle such a charge, the EEOC, in an effort to vindicate and protect the rights of the employee or employees, may consider filing a lawsuit in court on their behalf. However, given the agency’s large workload and limited resources, most charges of discrimination — regardless of their merit — do not result in lawsuits filed by EEOC. More frequently, after an investigation, the EEOC terminates its investigation and issues a notice giving the employee the right to pursue a lawsuit in court. After receiving the notice of suit rights, the employee has 90 days within which to file a lawsuit against his or her employer regarding the discrimination at issue in the charge. While Federal employees and job applicants have similar protections to the protections afforded private and state or local government employees, federal employees and applicants have a different complaint process.

 

This article was originally published on timcoffieldattorney.net 

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCOTUS, April 2, 2018)

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (SCt. Case No. 16-1362) (Encino II) held that service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who work more than forty hours in a week. Enacted in 1938, the FLSA is the United States labor law that created the employee right to minimum wage, and overtime pay (generally, one and a half times the employee’s regular hourly rate) for employees who work over forty hours a week. The FLSA, however, contains numerous exemptions — categories of employees who are not entitled to receive overtime pay under the FLSA based on their job duties. These employees are referred to as “exempt” from the right to receive overtime pay.

One such provision, codified at 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(10)(A), provides an exemption to the overtime-pay requirement for “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.” The plaintiff employee Navarro in Encino Motorcars worked for a car dealership as a service advisor. Navarro sued the dealership on behalf of himself and other service advisors, arguing that the dealership violated the FLSA by failing to pay them overtime wages. The primary question for the Supreme Court was whether the FLSA entitled service advisors to overtime pay, or whether the job of service advisor fell into the exemption for “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles[.]”

At the trial court level, the district court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that service advisors were exempt and therefore were not entitled to overtime pay. The employees appealed that decision, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court, finding that the exemption for “salesman … primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” did not apply to service advisors at car dealerships. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that the service advisors were exempt and therefore not entitled to overtime pay. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ginsberg wrote the dissent.

The Court first determined that a service advisor is a “salesman” for the purposes of the exemption at issue, because the ordinary meaning of “salesman” is someone who sells goods or services, and service advisors “sell [customers] services for their vehicles[.]” Encino II at 6 (cite to earlier decision omitted).

Next, the Court held that service advisors are also “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” Thomas’ reasoning here was that “servicing” can mean either “the action of maintaining or repairing a motor vehicle” or “[t]he action of providing a service,” and service advisors satisfy both definitions because they are integral to the servicing process. Encino II at 6-7. Service advisors meet customers and listen to their concerns about their cars; suggest repair and maintenance services; sell new or replacement parts; record service orders; follow up with customers as the services are performed; and explain the repair and maintenance work being performed. Encino II at 6-7 (quotes omitted). Therefore, service advisors are primarily engaged in servicing automobiles.

In reaching this conclusion, Thomas rejected the Ninth Circuit’s approach to interpreting the word “or” in the language of the exemption (“any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles”). The Ninth Circuit had applied the distributive method — matching “salesman” with “selling” and “partsman [and] mechanic” with “servicing”— and therefore determined that the exemption does not apply to “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” The Supreme Court disagreed with that approach, observing that the word “or,” is “almost always disjunctive” — meaning, in this context of this language, that “salesman” could be matched with “servicing.” Encino II at 7-9 (citing United States v. Woods, 571 U. S. 31, 45.) The Court also pointed out that the distributive use of “or” worked best when one-to-one matching was possible and did not make as much sense when trying to pair three terms (“salesman, partsman, or mechanic”) with two terms (“selling” or “servicing”). Therefore, the Court applied the disjunctive meaning of “or.” By using “or” to join “selling” and “servicing”, Thomas determined that the exemption covers a salesman primarily engaged in either selling or servicing. This included service advisors, which the Court had concluded were salesmen primarily engaged in servicing automobiles. Encino II at 7-9.

Thomas also discussed the Ninth Circuit’s application of the long-standing principle in FLSA jurisprudence that exemptions should be narrowly construed. Thomas rejected that approach, reasoning that because the FLSA “gives no textual indication that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, there is no reason to give them anything other than a fair (rather than a ‘narrow’) interpretation.” Encino II at 9 (citing and quoting Scalia, Reading Law, at 363.)

In sum, this case determined that service advisors at auto dealerships are exempt from the overtime-pay requirement, and departed from the Court’s long-standing principle that FLSA exemptions should be construed narrowly.

This article was originally published on timcoffieldattorney.com

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Protections for Employees with Disabilities

Enacted in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life. This includes jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public. Similar to laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, or religion, the ADA’s purpose is to ensure that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as those who do not. This protects disabled individuals by guaranteeing equal opportunities in public accommodations, transportation, state and local government services, telecommunications, and employment. The ADA is divided into five titles. The first four titles each address a different sphere of public life, and the fifth section contains laws that apply generally to the first four, including protections against retaliation for people who seek to exercise their rights under the ADA:

Title I: Equal Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities;
Title II: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services;
Title III: Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities;
Title IV: Telecommunications;
Title V: Miscellaneous, including protections against retaliation.

Title I of the ADA is intended to ensure disabled individuals have access to the same employment opportunities as people without disabilities. This part of the law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Among other things, this part of the law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to assist employees that qualify as disabled under the ADA. For example, an employer may need to provide a deaf employee with access to sign language interpreters, provide ramps for employees who use wheelchairs, or under some circumstances provide disabled employees with ergonomic desks or modified workstations. An employer should engage in an interactive process with its employees who have disabilities, to work together to identify and implement effective accommodations for their respective disabilities. The interactive process is ongoing. It may involve a series of meetings over time and oftentimes includes considering input from an employee’s physician. Employees should be able to perform the essential functions of their jobs with the required modifications or adjustments.

Title I of the ADA also prohibits employers from discharging, demoting, or denying advancement opportunities to disabled employees on the basis of their disabilities. An employee who believes they have been subjected to this form of disability discrimination may bring a lawsuit against his or her employer for not complying with the ADA (after first filing a charge of discrimination with the proper EEOC field office). Employees who seek to enforce in court their rights under the ADA to be free from disability-based employment discrimination generally must prove three elements:

The individual’s impairment must qualify as a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. The ADA defines “disability” to include (1) any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, (2) a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or (3) a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. To establish if an individual’s particular impairment substantially limits major life activities, a court will consider a variety of factors, including the nature of impairment and its severity, how long the individual has been dealing with the impairment, and the actual or expected long-term impact.

The individual is qualified and able to perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without reasonable accommodations. This simply means the individual needs to be able to do his or her job, and perform the duties that job entails, once the employer has made the necessary reasonable accommodations for the employee’s disability.

The individual has suffered an adverse employment action on the basis of his or her disability. An adverse employment action can include a termination, a demotion, the denial of a promotion, or other similar action by the employer that denies the employee advancement opportunities in the company. An adverse employment action “on the basis of disability” can mean a variety of things, depending on the circumstances. For example, it can mean the employer at least partly did not want to keep or advance the employee because of his or her disability, record of disabilities, or perceive disability. Under certain circumstances, it can also mean the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s known disability, then terminated or denied opportunities to the employee because of perceived performance deficiencies that could have been avoided if the employer had reasonably accommodated the employee’s disability. For example, if an employer fails to provide a deaf employee with reasonable access to sign language interpreters, then fires the employee for not communicating effectively with others at work who do not know sign language, that might constitute a wrongful termination under the ADA.

In short, Title I of the ADA seeks to ensure that individuals with disabilities have equal access to employment opportunities as employees without disabilities. Under certain circumstances, employees who feel they have been denied reasonable accommodations at work, or otherwise mistreated by an employer due to a disability, may take legal action to address the issue and improve the equality of employment opportunities for themselves and other employees with disabilities.

This article was originally published on timcoffieldattorney.net

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.  

Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCOTUS, May 21, 2018)

Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (SCt. Case No. 16-285) highlights the tension between a pair of federal laws, The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), concerning whether an employment contract can legally bar employees from engaging in collective action to enforce their rights in court. The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) was enacted in 1925 to allow parties to contractually agree to resolve disputes through arbitration, rather than through the judicial system. The following decade Congress enacted The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (“NLRA”), which protects the rights of employees to, among other things, engage in collective action to protect their legal rights. Employees protected under the NLRA are able to join together and take collective action to counter unfair employment practices and improve their working conditions and wages.

In Epic Systems, the employer distributed via email a new policy requiring employees to sign an arbitration agreement. The agreement, in short, stated that employees bringing claims for alleged violations of wage-and-hour or other laws could only do so through individual arbitration. This agreement further included a provision designed to waive the employees’ “rights to participate in any class, collective, or representative proceeding.” The agreement was to be recognized and signed by its employees, including Lewis, a tech writer for the company. Lewis did acknowledge and sign the agreement.

The following year, in February of 2015, Lewis filed a suit against Epic Systems. The suit was filed as a purported collective action, involving other tech writers employed at Epic Systems. The collective action alleged Epic Systems failed to follow The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, in addition to a Wisconsin law related to employees’ rights to receive overtime pay. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Epic Systems moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the arbitration agreement signed by Lewis prevented him from bringing or participating in collective actions, and required him to address any claims through individual arbitration. The District Court denied Epic Systems’ motion, finding Lewis’ action was protected under section 7 of the NLRA, and stating that the 2014 arbitration agreement and collective action waiver violated those terms.

Epic Systems appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the District Court erred by finding that the FAA did not control and that the collective action waiver was not valid. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court, however, finding that Epic Systems’ collective action waiver violated the terms of the NLRA. Epic Systems petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, following a split of authority among the circuit courts of appeal relating to the tension between respective provisions of the NLRA and FAA. In January 2017, the Supreme Court consolidated Epic Systems with two other similar cases and agreed to hear the oral arguments of all three cases.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision ruling that individual arbitration agreements and collective action waivers are enforceable under the FAA, and that neither the NLRA or the FAA’s savings clause requires a different conclusion.

 

This site is intended to provide general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Please view the full disclaimer. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.  

This article was originally published on timcoffieldattorney.com