Posts Tagged: supreme court

Integrity Staffing v. Busk: Principal Activities Law

In Integrity Staffing Sols., Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014), the Supreme Court held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, time warehouse workers spent waiting for and undergoing security screenings was not compensable time. More broadly, the decision clarified the proper analysis of “principal activities” verses preliminary and postliminary activities. Principal activities are compensable under the FLSA. Purely preliminary or postliminary activities (like a commute) are not, but some activities before or after a shift might still be compensable principal activities. The term “principal activities” includes all activities which are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities.” An activity is “integral and indispensable to the principal activities” if it is an “intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” 574 U.S at 33.

Facts

Busk worked for Integrity Staffing Solutions as an hourly warehouse worker. Integrity Staffing provided warehouse staffing to Amazon. Integrity Staffing’s warehouse workers retrieved and packaged products for delivery to Amazon.com customers. Integrity Staffing required these employees to undergo a security screening before leaving the warehouse each day, but did not pay them for the time (roughly 25 minutes each day) they spent waiting for and undergoing the screening. Busk and his co-workers filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They asserted, inter alia, they were entitled to compensation for the time they spent waiting to undergo and undergoing the screenings. They also argued the screenings were compensable because the company could have reduced the time involved to a negligible de minimis amount by adding screeners or staggering shifts, and because the screenings were conducted to prevent employee theft and, thus, for the sole benefit of the employers and their customers.

The District Court dismissed this claim. It held the screenings were not integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal activities but were instead postliminary and noncompensable under the Portal–to–Portal Act. The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision in part, holding that the postshift screening would be compensable as integral and indispensable to the employees’ principal activities if the screenings were necessary to the principal work and performed for the employer’s benefit. Integrity Staffing appealed. 

The Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed. It held the time the warehouse workers spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings was not compensable under the FLSA. 

First, the Court explained Congress passed the Portal–to–Portal Act in response to the “unexpected liabilities” created by a broad judicial interpretation of the FLSA’s undefined terms “work” and “workweek.” See 29 U.S.C. § 251(a). The Portal–to–Portal Act therefore exempted employers from FLSA liability for claims based on “activities which are preliminary to or postliminary to” the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform. 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(2)

The Court had long held that the term “principal activities” includes all activities which are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities.” Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 252–253 (1956). In Integrity Staffing, the Court further explained that an activity is “integral and indispensable to the principal activities” if it is an “intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” 574 U.S at 33.

For example, in Steiner, the Court held the time battery-plant employees spent showering and changing clothes was compensable because the chemicals in the plant were “toxic to human beings” and the employer conceded that “the clothes-changing and showering activities of the employees [were] indispensable to the performance of their productive work and integrally related thereto.” Id. at 34 (quoting Steiner at 249, 251). Similarly, in Mitchell v. King Packing Co., 350 U.S. 260, 262 (1956), the Court held compensable the time meatpacker employees spent sharpening their knives because dull knives would “slow down production” on the assembly line, “affect the appearance of the meat as well as the quality of the hides,” “cause waste,” and lead to “accidents.” 574 U.S. at 34 (quoting Mitchell at 262). By contrast, in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), the Court held noncompensable the time poultry-plant employees spent waiting to don protective gear because such waiting was “two steps removed from the productive activity on the assembly line.” 574 U.S. at 34 (quoting IBP at 42). The Court further noted Department of Labor regulations were consistent with this approach. See 29 CFR § 790.8(b) (“The term ‘principal activities’ includes all activities which are an integral part of a principal activity.”); 29 CFR § 790.8(c) (“Among the activities included as an integral part of a principal activity are those closely related activities which are indispensable to its performance.”); 29 CFR 790.7(g) (examples of preliminary and postliminary activities). 574 U.S. at 30-35.

The Court then held the security screenings at issue in Integrity Staffing were noncompensable postliminary activities. First, the Court determined the screenings were not the principal activities the employees were employed to perform. The workers were not employed to undergo security screenings. They were employed to retrieve goods from the warehouse and package them for shipment. Nor were the security screenings “integral and indispensable” to those activities. In support of this conclusion, the Court cited a 1951 Department of Labor opinion letter, which found noncompensable under the Portal–to–Portal Act both a preshift screening conducted for employee safety and a postshift search conducted to prevent employee theft. 

The employees in Integrity Staffing, like the Ninth Circuit, essentially took the position that if an activity was required by an employer it was compensable under the FLSA. The Court disagreed with this approach, noting that it would sweep into “principal activities” the very activities that the Portal–to–Portal Act was designed to exclude from compensation (like the time waiting to don protective gear held noncompensable in IBP). Finally, the Court rejected the employees’ argument that the screenings were compensable because Integrity Staffing could have reduced the time to a de minimis amount. Whether an employer could conceivably reduce the time employees spent on a preliminary or postliminary activity did not change the nature of the activity or its relationship to the principal activities that an employee is employed to perform. Therefore, that concern was properly addressed through bargaining, rather than in a suit under the FLSA. 574 U.S. at 35-37.

Analysis

In sum, Integrity Staffing clarified the analysis of “principal activities” verses preliminary and postliminary activities. Principal activities are compensable. The term “principal activities” includes all activities which are an “integral and indispensable part of the principal activities.” An activity is “integral and indispensable to the principal activities” if it is an “intrinsic element of those activities and one with which the employee cannot dispense if he is to perform his principal activities.” 574 U.S at 33. More specifically, Integrity Staffing stands for the proposition that time spent waiting for and undergoing security screenings was not a principal activity and therefore not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

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 blog was also published to TimCoffieldAttorney.com.

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez: Law of Compensation for Waiting

The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay minimum wages and overtime wages based on time worked by covered employees. Oftentimes, an employee has to spend time waiting to put equipment, walking to a worksite, or doing other preshift tasks necessary to perform her job. Is the employee entitled to compensation under the FLSA for that time? Trial courts routinely address various iterations of this question. In IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), the Supreme Court answered one of them. It held that the FLSA requires employers to pay employees for time spent walking to and from stations that distributed employer-mandated safety equipment.

Facts

Alvarez involved two separate but similar cases. Employees of IBP filed suit under the FLSA  seeking compensation for time they spent putting on and taking off (“donning and doffing”) required protective gear and walking between the locker rooms and the production floor of IBP’s meat processing facility. The trial court decided these activities were compensable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. IBP appealed.

In the companion case, employees of Barber Foods sought compensation under the FLSA for time they spent donning and doffing required protective gear at Barber’s poultry processing plant, as well as time they spent walking and waiting associated with picking up and returning the gear. The trial court found in favor of Barber on the walking and waiting claims, finding those activities were not compensable. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the walking and waiting times were preliminary and postliminary activities excluded from FLSA coverage by §§4(a)(1) and (2) of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. The employees appealed.

The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the cases to address the question of whether the FLSA requires employers to pay employees for time spent walking to and from stations that distributed required safety equipment.

Legal Background

In Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 691–692 (1946), the Supreme Court held that a “workweek” under the FLSA included the time employees spent walking from time clocks near a factory entrance to their workstations. In response to that decision, Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Portal-to-Portal Act excepted from FLSA coverage walking on the employer’s premises to and from the location of the employee’s “principal activity or activities,” §4(a)(1), and activities that are “preliminary or postliminary” to “said principal activity or activities,” §4(a)(2).

The Department of Labor subsequently issued regulations which interpreted the Portal-to-Portal Act as not affecting the computation of hours within a “workday,” 29 CFR §790.6(a), which includes “the period between the commencement and completion” of the “principal activity or activities,” §790.6(b).

In a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256 (1956), the Court explained that the “term ‘principal activity or activities’ … embraces all activities which are ‘an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities,’ ” including the donning and doffing of specialized protective gear “before or after the regular work shift, on or off the production line.”

The Court’s Decision

In the 2005 Alvarez decision, the Court held that an employee putting on employer-required safety equipment qualified as a “principal activity” under the FLSA. The continuous “workday” for purposes of calculating compensable time began when employees started that activity. Therefore, compensable time included the subsequent time employees spent walking to and from the worksite after donning their protective gear, and time spent waiting to doff the gear. The Court further held that the previous time spent waiting to put on the safety equipment, however, was not included in the workday, and not compensable time, because it was a “preliminary” activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act. 546 U.S. at 28-38.

Time spent walking to and from the worksite after donning and before doffing protective gear is compensable time

First, the Alvarez held that the time the IBP employees spent walking after changing into protective gear from the locker room to the production floor was compensable under the FLSA.  546 U.S. at 33-37.

The Court explained that Section 4(a)(1) of the Portal-to-Portal Act text does not exclude this time from the FLSA. IBP had argued that, because donning is not the “principal activity” that starts the workday, walking occurring immediately after donning and immediately before doffing is not compensable. That argument, the Court pointed out, was foreclosed by its decision in Steiner, which clarified that §4 does not remove activities that are “integral and indispensable” to “principal activities” from FLSA coverage because those activities are themselves “principal activities.” 350 U. S. at 253. The Court went on to explain that that these identical terms cannot mean different things within the same law (§4(a)(2) and in §4(a)(1)). According to the normal rules of statutory interpretation, identical words used in different parts of the same statute are generally presumed to have the same meaning. Further, with respect to §4(a)(2)’s reference to “said principal activity or activities,” “said” is an explicit reference to the use of the identical term in §4(a)(1). Alvarez, 546 U.S. at 33-35.

The Court also rejected IBP’s argument that Congress’s repudiation of the Anderson decision (by passing the Portal-to-Portal Act) reflected a legislative purpose to exclude the walking time at issue from the FLSA. The Court found this argument unpersuasive because it observed the time at issue in Alvarez, which occurred after the workday begins (by donning) and before it ends (by doffing), was more comparable to time spent walking between two different positions on an assembly line than to the walking in Anderson, which occurred before the workday began. Id. at 34-35.

The Court also pointed out the DOL regulations supported the compensable nature of the IBP employees’ walking time. For example, 29 CFR §790.6 did not strictly define the workday’s limits as the period from “whistle to whistle.” And 29 CFR §790.7(g), n. 49, which provides that postdonning walking time is not “necessarily” excluded from  §4(a)(1) of the Portal-to-Portal Act, does not mean that such time is always excluded. Therefore, the Court determined those regulations could not overcome clear statements elsewhere in the regulations that supported the compensable nature of postdonning walking time. 546 U.S. at 35-37.

Time spent waiting to doff is compensable time

With respect to the Barber Foods employees, the Court similarly held that because donning and doffing gear that is “integral and indispensable” to employees’ work is a “principal activity” under the FLSA, the continuous workday rule required that the time the Barber Foods employees spent walking to and from the production floor after donning and before doffing, as well as the time spent waiting to doff at the end of the day, are not affected by the Portal-to-Portal Act. Therefore, this time was compensable under the FLSA. 546 U.S. at 37-39.

Time spent waiting to don is not compensable time

Finally, however, the Court held that time spent waiting to don protective gear before work is not compensable time. The Court’s reasoned that §4(a)(2) of the Portal-to-Portal Act excluded from the FLSA the time employees spend waiting to don the first piece of gear that marks the beginning of the continuous workday. The Court determined that this qualifies as a “preliminary” activity because it was “two steps removed” from the productive activity on the assembly line. While certain preshift activities were necessary for employees to engage in their principal activities, the Court found that this does not mean that those preshift activities are “integral and indispensable” to a “principal activity” under Steiner. The Court expressed a concern that it could not conclude that Barber employees predonning waiting time was a compensable “principle activity” without also reaching the necessary (but untenable) conclusion that the walking time in Anderson would also be a “principal activity” unaffected by the Portal-to-Portal Act. The Court observed that 29 CFR §790.7(h) (differentiating between being “engaged to wait,” which is compensable, and “wait[ing] to be engaged, which is not compensable) did not support a finding that time spent waiting to don protective gear was compensable. 546 U.S. at 39-42.

Analysis

In short, Alvarez held that an employee putting on employer-required safety equipment qualified as a “principal activity” under the FLSA. The continuous “workday” for purposes of calculating compensable time began when employees started that activity.

This determination, that the workday begins with donning, has two important implications. First, FLSA compensable time included the subsequent time employees spent walking to and from the worksite after donning their protective gear, and time waiting to doff their gear. Second, however, the previous time employees spent waiting to don the protective equipment was not included in the workday, and not compensable time, because it was a “preliminary” activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act.

This blog was also published at 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 (434) 218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com.

Law of Joint Employment

Law of Joint Employment

A worker’s joint employers are jointly and severally liable for any violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125, 134 (4th Cir. 2017). This means that for purposes of the FLSA’s requirements that an employer pay minimum wages and overtime wages to non-exempt employees, a worker may have more “employers” than just the company who issues her paychecks. In short, if more than one entity has the ability to help determine the conditions of a workers’ employment, more than one entity may be liable if the worker is not paid the minimum wages or overtime compensation required by federal law.

DOL Joint Employment Regulations

The Department of Labor regulation implementing the FLSA distinguishes “separate and distinct employment” from “joint employment.” 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(a). “Separate employment” exists when “all the relevant facts establish that two or more employers are acting entirely independently of each other and are completely disassociated with respect to the” individual’s employment. Id. By contrast, “joint employment” exists when “employment by one employer is not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer(s).” Id. When two or more entities are found to jointly employ a particular worker, “all of the employee’s work for all of the joint employers during the workweek is considered as one employment for purposes of the [FLSA].” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, for example, all hours worked by the employee on behalf of each joint employer are counted together to determine whether the employee is entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Id; Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 766 (4th Cir. 2017).

Fourth Circuit Factors

In Salinas, the Fourth Circuit observed that the joint employment regulations speak to “one fundamental question: whether two or more persons or entities are ‘not completely disassociated’ with respect to a worker such that the persons or entities share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine — formally or informally, directly or indirectly — the essential terms and conditions of the worker’s employment.” 848 F.3d at 141 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(a) and citing In re Enter. Rent-A-Car Wage & Hour Employment Practices Litig., 683 F.3d 462, 468 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[W]here two or more employers … share or co-determine those matters governing essential terms and conditions of employment — they constitute ‘joint employers’ under the FLSA.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

With these principles in mind, courts in the Fourth Circuit consider six factors in determining whether entities constitute joint employers:

(1) whether, formally or as a matter of practice, the putative joint employers jointly determine, share, or allocate the power to direct, control, or supervise the worker, whether by direct or indirect means;

(2) whether, formally or as a matter of practice, the putative joint employers jointly determine, share, or allocate the power to, directly or indirectly, hire or fire the worker or modify the terms or conditions of the worker’s employment;

(3) the degree of permanency and duration of the relationship between the putative joint employers;

(4) whether, through shared management or a direct or indirect ownership interest, one putative joint employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other putative joint employer;

(5) whether the work is performed on a premises owned or controlled by one or more of the putative joint employers, independently or in connection with one another; and

(6) whether, formally or as a matter of practice, the putative joint employers jointly determine, share, or allocate responsibility over functions ordinarily carried out by an employer, such as handling payroll, providing workers’ compensation insurance, paying payroll taxes, or providing the facilities, equipment, tools, or materials necessary to complete the work. Id. at 141.

Salinas at 141.

The Fourth Circuit in Salinas observed that these six factors may not constitute an exhaustive list of all potentially relevant considerations. Id. at 142. “To the extent that facts not captured by these factors speak to the fundamental threshold question that must be resolved in every joint employment case — whether a purported joint employer shares or codetermines the essential terms and conditions of a worker’s employment — courts must consider those facts as well.” Id.

As these factors illustrate, the Fourth Circuit’s joint employer test turns on whether the entities in question codetermine the essential conditions of a worker’s employment. Salinas at 143. Thus, the existence of a general contractor-subcontractor relationship “has no bearing on whether entities … constitute joint employers for purposes of the FLSA.” Id. 143–44.

Application of Salinas Factors

For example, in Salinas, the Fourth Circuit held that a drywall installation subcontractor and general contractor were joint employers under the FLSA because, inter alia, the subcontractor provided staffing for the contractor based on the contractor’s needs; the employees performed the work for the contractor’s benefit; the contractor supervised the employees’ progress daily and provided feedback; and the employees wore uniforms bearing the contractor’s logo. 848 F.3d at 146.

For another Fourth Circuit case on the joint employer issue, see Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757, 762 (4th Cir. 2017). In that case, the plaintiff technicians sufficiently alleged DIRECTV as a joint employer, even though the technicians were nominally employed by a subcontractor. The court held that DIRECTV could be liable as a joint employer along with the subcontractor because, inter alia, the technicians were required to “obtain their work schedules and job assignments through DIRECTV’s centralized system,” to check in with DIRECTV after completing assigned jobs, and to “wear DIRECTV uniforms…when performing work for the company.” Similarly, in Young v. Act Fast Delivery of W. Virginia, Inc., 2018 WL 279996, *8 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 3, 2018), the court held that under Salinas, a pharmaceutical delivery company was a joint employer of the plaintiff couriers, even though the couriers were nominally employed by a third party subcontractor.

As the Fourth Circuit emphasized in Salinas, “Separate employment exists when … ‘two or more employers are acting entirely independently of each other and are completely disassociated with respect to’ the individual’s employment.” 848 F.3d at 133-34 (emphasis in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(a)). “By contrast, joint employment exists when ‘the facts establish … that employment by one employer is not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer.’” Salinas at 134 (emphasis in original).

Summary

Therefore, under the Fourth Circuit’s framework, the “fundamental question” guiding the joint employment analysis is “whether two or more persons or entities are ‘not completely disassociated’ with respect to a worker such that the persons or entities share, agree to allocate responsibility for, or otherwise codetermine — formally or informally, directly or indirectly — the essential terms and conditions of the worker’s employment.” Id. at 140. If the facts show that two related companies were not “completely disassociated” or “acting entirely independently” with respect to a worker’s employment, they may be joint employers. If the entities shared control over the conditions of employment, they may both be potentially jointly and severally liable for FLSA violations as joint employers.

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.

McKennon v. Nashville Banner: Law of After-Acquired Evidence

McKennon v. Nashville Banner: Law of After-Acquired Evidence

What happens when an employer, having wrongfully terminated an employee (in violation of federal employment law), discovers in litigation that the employee did something that would have legitimately and lawfully lead to termination, had the employer known about it before wrongfully firing the employee? Does the employer still have to pay lost wages for the wrongful termination, or does this “after-acquired evidence” excuse the violation?

The Supreme Court addressed these questions in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995). The Court rejected the argument that a legitimate reason for termination, discovered after an unlawful discharge, excuses the unlawful action or bars the employee from recovery. However, the Court also indicated that such after-acquired evidence may limit the employee’s ability to obtain reinstatement or recover all lost wages associated with the termination.

Facts

McKennon worked thirty years for Nashville Banner Publishing Company until she was terminated at age sixty-two. McKennon filed suit, alleging that her discharge violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). McKennon’s suit sought a variety of legal and equitable remedies available under the ADEA, including backpay. In her deposition, McKennon admitted that during her final year of employment she had copied and taken home several of the Banner’s confidential financial documents. 513 U.S. 354-56.

For the purposes of summary judgment, the Banner conceded that it had discriminated against McKennon because of her age. Id. The District Court, however, granted summary judgment for the company, holding that McKennon’s misconduct in taking the confidential documents was grounds for termination and that neither back pay nor any other remedy was available to her under the ADEA. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same reasoning. McKennon appealed. Id. at 355-56.

The Court’s Decision

The Court reversed. It held that an employee who is fired in violation of federal employment law is not barred from all relief when, after her discharge, her employer discovers evidence of wrongdoing that would have led to her termination on lawful and legitimate grounds had the employer known of it. 513 U.S. 356-360.

After-Acquired Evidence Not a Complete Bar

First, the Court held that this kind of “after-acquired evidence” is not a complete bar to recovery. The Court reasoned that even if the employee engaged in misconduct that would have prompted a termination, the employer’s discrimination that actually prompted the discharge cannot be disregarded. The Court assessed the purposes of the ADEA’s remedial provisions, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) and 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), which (like the remedial provisions of other employment laws) were designed both to compensate employees for injuries caused by unlawful discrimination and to deter employers from discriminating in the first place. The Court concluded that allowing after-acquired evidence to bar all relief would frustrate both of these important objectives. Therefore, the Court held that after-acquired evidence did not bar all relief for unlawful discrimination. Id. at 358-360.

Relevance to Crafting an Appropriate Remedy

Second, however, the Court observed that trial courts should take into account after-acquired evidence of an employee’s wrongdoing in determining the specific remedy for the employer’s discrimination. To hold otherwise, and bar any consideration of employee misbehavior in the relief analysis, would be to ignore the employer’s legitimate concerns about employee misconduct. The ADEA, like other employment laws, just prohibits discrimination. It does not limit employers from having legitimate rules and exercising appropriate lawful discretion in hiring, promoting, and firing employees. Therefore, the Court noted, employee wrongdoing is relevant in taking due account of such lawful prerogatives and the employer’s corresponding equities arising from the wrongdoing. Id. at 360-61.

General Rule: No Reinstatement or Front Pay

Third, the Court discussed how trial courts might balance these competing concerns — on one hand, the prohibition against unlawful discrimination, and on the other, the employer’s right to address legitimate employee misconduct in an appropriate manner. The Court decided that remedial relief in such cases should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, the Court stated that as a general rule, if the employer proves the employee engaged in misconduct that would have prompted a lawful termination had the employer known about it, neither reinstatement nor front pay is an appropriate remedy. Id. at 362. This is because “it would be both inequitable and pointless to order the reinstatement of someone the employer would have terminated, and will terminate, in any event and upon lawful grounds.” Id.

Possible Limitations on Back Pay

The Court indicated that the more difficult issue, in after-acquired evidence cases, is the proper measure of back pay. This is because even a guilty employer cannot be required to ignore information it learns about employee wrongdoing that would lead to a legitimate discharge, even if it is acquired during the course of a discrimination lawsuit and might have gone undiscovered in the absence of the discrimination that led to the lawsuit. Id. at 362. The Court stated that the “beginning point in formulating a remedy should therefore be calculation of backpay from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered.” Id. In determining the appropriate relief, the court can consider extraordinary equitable circumstances that affect the legitimate interests of either party. But an “absolute rule barring any recovery of backpay, however, would undermine the [federal employment law’s] objective of forcing employers to consider and examine their motivations, and of penalizing them for employment decisions that spring from … discrimination.” Id. Thus, as a general rule, after-acquired evidence does not bar back pay, but it might limit the amount of back pay an employee can recover.

No Bar to General Compensatory, Punitive, or Liquidated Damages

It is also worth noting that McKennon did not state or suggest that compensatory damages for past or future emotional harm should be time-limited. The decision only addressed possible limitations on lost wages and reinstatement. Allowing full emotional distress damages even if the defendant prevails on an after-acquired evidence defense makes good sense in light of McKennon’s reasoning. This is because no legitimate business prerogative would be served by allowing a proven discriminator to avoid paying the full cost of the emotional damage caused by the discrimination. The same reasoning supports the conclusion that after-acquired evidence does not bar punitive damages or liquidated damages, in cases where the usual standards for awarding punitive or liquidated damages are met. Here is a link to EEOC’s guidance on this issue.

Employer’s Burden of Proof

Finally, the Court discussed the employer’s burden in attempting to prove an “after-acquired evidence” defense. When an employer seeks to use this defense, it must first establish that the wrongdoing was of “such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone had the employer known of it at the time of the discharge.” Id. at 362-63. The Court also expressed concern that, due to the possibility of uncovering after-acquired evidence, employers might routinely undertake extensive discovery into an employee’s background or job performance to resist employment discrimination claims. Id. at 363. However, the Court concluded the trial courts’ authority to award attorney’s fees under §§ 216(b) and 626(b) and to invoke the appropriate provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would likely deter most abuses of the discovery rules. Id.

Analysis

The Court in McKennon rejected the notion that a legitimate reason for termination, discovered after an unlawful discharge, excuses the unlawful action or bars the employee from recovery. However, such after-acquired evidence may limit the employee’s ability to obtain reinstatement or recover all lost wages associated with the termination. To use this defense, an employer must prove that the employee engaged in misconduct of such severity that the employee would have been terminated on those grounds alone had the employer learned of it during her employment. As a general rule, if the employer meets this burden, reinstatement is not an appropriate remedy and back pay may be limited.

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.

Smith v. City of Jackson: ADEA Authorizes Employee Disparate Impact Claims

In Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, authorizes disparate impact claims. This means that an employee, to prevail on an age discrimination claim, does not necessarily have to prove her employer intended to discriminate against her because of her age. Under a disparate impact approach, an employee may prove age discrimination by showing the employer took an adverse action against her based on a standard or test that has the effect of adversely impacting older workers — regardless of whether the employer intended to adversely impact older workers. Unlike Title VII, however, § 4(f)(1) of the ADEA narrows its coverage by permitting any “otherwise prohibited” action “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age[.]” 544 U.S. at 233 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1)). The scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is therefore arguably narrower than disparate-impact liability under Title VII. Id. at 240.

As discussed in an earlier post, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects employees over age 40 from discrimination based on age in hiring, discharge, promotion, compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act contains similar provisions outlawing discrimination because of race, sex, or religion. As discussed in an earlier post, the Supreme Court in in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), addressed the Title VII issues created by employer policies that are facially neutral, and which the employer does not intend as discriminatory, but which adversely impact employees on the basis of race, sex, or religion. Griggs decided that where an employer uses a neutral policy or rule, or utilizes a neutral test, and this policy or test disproportionately impacts minorities or women in an adverse manner, then the neutral rule or test violates Title VII unless the employer proves it is justified by “business necessity.”

City of Jackson addressed the question of whether the ADEA, like Title VII, allows disparate impact claims by prohibiting facially neutral employer practices that disparately impact older workers.

Facts

City of Jackson involved a challenge to a city’s pay plan for police officers that was relatively less favorable to older workers than to younger workers.

The Jackson plan divided the officers into five basic positions — police officer, master police officer, police sergeant, police lieutenant, and deputy police chief — and divided the pay scale for those positions into a series of steps and half-steps. The few officers in the two highest ranks were all over age 40. The raises they received under the plan, though higher in dollar amount than the raises given to junior officers, represented a smaller percentage of their salaries. These officers in the two highest ranks were the members of the class arguing that the pay plan had a “disparate impact” against older workers.

The Jackson plaintiffs’ evidence established two main facts: First, almost two-thirds (66.2%) of the officers under 40 received raises of more than 10% while less than half (45.3%) of those over 40 did. Second, the average percentage increase for the entire class of officers with less than five years of tenure was somewhat higher than the percentage for those with more seniority. Because the older officers tended to occupy more senior positions, on average they therefore received smaller increases when measured as a percentage of their salary. Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 241–42.

The older officers in the two highest ranks filed suit against the City under the ADEA, on the grounds that the pay plan violated the law by having a disproportionate impact on workers over age 40.

The Court’s Decision

Addressing these facts, the Supreme Court held, that like Title VII, the ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims. The Court also pointed out, however, that unlike Title VII, § 4(f)(1) of the ADEA narrows its coverage by permitting any “otherwise prohibited” action “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age[.]” Jackson, 544 U.S. at 233. The scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is therefore narrower than disparate-impact liability under Title VII. Id. At 240.

To make out an ADEA disparate-impact claim, the Court held that plaintiffs must do more than show a pay plan generally has the effect of being less generous to older workers. They must establish a “specific test, requirement, or practice within the pay plan that has an adverse impact on older workers.” 544 U.S. at 241. In Jackson, while plaintiff employees had proved that the plan was relatively less generous to older workers, they had not identified any specific test, requirement, or practice “within the plan” that had an adverse impact on older workers. Id.

The Court also discussed the provision of the ADEA that permits differentiation based on “reasonable factors other than age,” as applied to the factors underlying the pay plan at issue. See 29 U.S.C. § 623(f)(1). The Court observed that the basic explanation for the differential in the Jackson pay plan was the City’s perceived need to raise the salaries of junior officers to make them competitive with comparable positions in the market. The Court held that the disparate impact was attributable to the City’s decision to give raises based on seniority and position. “Reliance on seniority and rank is unquestionably reasonable given the City’s goal of raising employees’ salaries to match those in surrounding communities… [Therefore] the City’s decision to grant a larger raise to lower echelon employees for the purpose of bringing salaries in line with that of surrounding police forces was a decision based on a “reasonable facto[r] other than age” that responded to the City’s legitimate goal of retaining police officers. Jackson, 544 U.S. at 242.

The Court therefore (1) held that the ADEA authorizes disparate impact claims, although the scope of such claims is somewhat narrower than the scope of disparate impact claims under Title VII, and (2) affirmed summary judgment for the employer city on the particular facts of that case.

Analysis

Under City of Jackson, employees may bring ADEA claims on the grounds that facially neutral employer practices or plans have a disparate impact on older workers. However, at least with respect to employer pay plans, it is probably not enough to just show that the end result of the pay plan was relatively less favorable to older workers than to younger workers. Employees would also need to identify a specific practice “within the plan” that adversely affected older workers. 544 U.S. at 241. In the trial court decisions applying City of Jackson under different factual circumstances, however, the practical difference between pointing out that a pay plan “is relatively less generous to older workers” and identifying a “specific test, requirement, or practice within the pay plan that has an adverse impact on older workers” is sometimes a little blurry. Id. For example, the Norfolk division of the Eastern District of Virginia denied an employer’s motion to dismiss an ADEA disparate impact claim, where the complaint alleged the employer “implemented a screening and evaluation process [that] did not evaluate applicants fairly[,] but instead discriminated against candidates based on age”; “employees who were substantially older and with vastly more experience in the position and field were systematically passed over for the ITS positions in favor of younger, less-qualified applicants”; and “support[ed] the allegations with statistical data highlighting the respective ages of the applicants and those selected.” Andreana v. Virginia Beach City Pub. Sch., No. 2:17-CV-574, 2018 WL 2182297, *6 (E.D. Va. May 9, 2018). Similarly, in Merritt v. WellPoint, Inc., 615 F. Supp. 2d 440, 446 (E.D. Va. 2009), the court denied a motion to dismiss where the plaintiffs identified several alleged “arrangements” made by the employer that had a disparate impact on older workers, including: “analytical models,” a “selection process which considered age, and age-related characteristics, as negative factors” including medical care or leave, the use of “metrics,” which disproportionately evaluated and/or impacted older employees, and a consideration of “age and/or age-related characteristics in the ‘cost’ of maintaining an older workforce.”)

The main takeaway is this. City of Jackson held that the ADEA, like Title VII, authorizes disparate impact claims. This means that an employee, to prevail on an age discrimination claim, does not necessarily have to prove her employer intended to discriminate against her because of her age. Under a disparate impact approach, an employee can prove age discrimination by showing the employer took an adverse action against her based on a standard or test that had the effect of adversely impacting older workers — regardless of whether the employer intended to adversely impact older workers. Unlike Title VII, however, the ADEA narrows its coverage by permitting any “otherwise prohibited” action “where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age[.]” ADEA § 4(f)(1). The scope of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is therefore arguably narrower than disparate-impact liability under Title VII.

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.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The Law of Stereotyping

In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court recognized Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination necessarily includes a prohibition on gender stereotyping. The female employee in Price Waterhouse was denied a promotion because she was “macho,” “tough-talking,” and used “foul language,” and therefore failed to conform to certain gender stereotypes related to women. Id. at 235, 250-53. Six members of the Court held that adverse employment action like this, rooted in “sex stereotyping” or “gender stereotyping,” was actionable sex discrimination.

Facts

Hopkins worked for an accounting firm, Price Waterhouse, at its Office of Government Services in Washington, D.C. Despite several years of strong performance, she was denied partnership in the firm.

Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership, in essence, because of her aggressive personality, which sometimes bordered on abrasiveness. For example, partners evaluating her work had counseled her to improve her relations with staff members. And although Hopkins’ evaluations later noted improvement, her perceived shortcomings in this area ultimately doomed her bid for partnership. In the firm’s consideration of Hopkins for a promotion to partner, virtually all of the firm’s partners’ negative remarks about her had to do with her “interpersonal skills.” Id. at 234-35. Both “[s]upporters and opponents of her candidacy … indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with and impatient with staff.” Id.

The Court observed that there were “clear signs” that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins’ personality because she was a woman. Id. One partner described her as “macho”; another suggested that she “overcompensated for being a woman”; a third advised her to take “a course at charm school.” Id. Several partners criticized her use of profanity; in response, one partner suggested that those partners objected to her swearing only “because it’s a lady using foul language.” Id. Another supporter explained that Hopkins “ha[d] matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate.” Id. But the male supervisor who bore responsibility for explaining to Hopkins the reasons for the firm’s decision to not grant her partnership described her purported failings in terms of stereotypes about how women should behave: in order to improve her chances for partnership, the firm advised, Hopkins should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” Id. at 235.

In short, the record indicated Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership because she did not behave the way Price Waterhouse believed women should behave.

Hopkins filed suit against Price Waterhouse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds that she was unlawfully denied partnership because of her sex.

Applicable Law

As discussed in an earlier post, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Sex need only be a motivating factor, and not the only reason for the discharge or other discrimination. “[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when … sex … was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).

This section clearly prohibits an employer from refusing to hire or promote a female because she is female and the employer would prefer a male. Price Waterhouse addressed the question of whether Title VII also prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual because she or he does not conform to the employer’s (or society’s) stereotypes about how the different sexes should behave.

The Court’s Decision

Addressing the facts in Price Waterhouse, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination necessarily includes a prohibition on gender stereotyping. The Court noted that Hopkins was denied a promotion because she was “macho,” “tough-talking,” and used “foul language,” and therefore failed to conform to certain stereotypes related to women. Id at 235, 250-53. Six members of the Court held that adverse employment action rooted in such “sex stereotyping” or “gender stereotyping” was actionable sex discrimination. Id. at 250–52 (plurality; “an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender”); see also id. at 258 (White, J., concurring); id. at 272–73 (O’Connor, J., concurring).

Analysis

This case is important in the context of developing and understanding Title VII’s prohibition against employment discrimination “because of sex.” Under Price Waterhouse, a discharge (or other adverse employment action) based at least partly on gender stereotyping is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals explained in G.G. ex rel. Grimm (Grimm II), “the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that claims based on an individual’s failure to conform to societal expectations based on that person’s gender constitute discrimination ‘because of sex’ under Title VII[.]” 654 Fed. Appx. 606, 606–07 (4th Cir. 2016) (Davis, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted).

As the American Psychological Association explained in its amicus brief in Price Waterhouse, sex stereotyping can create discriminatory consequences for stereotyped groups — for example, where they shape perceptions about women’s typical and acceptable roles in society. The APA further explained, as seen in the circumstances surrounding Hopkins’ partnership denial, how sex stereoptyping can have negative effects on women in work settings. The Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse allowed Title VII to be applied in a manner that seeks to address and remedy these issues.

Following the reasoning in Price Waterhouse, courts around the country have consistently held that an employer violates Title VII when it takes adverse action against an employee because she or he does not behave the way the employer believes the different sexes should behave. For example, Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 6, 2004) characterized employer complaints about “assertive, strong women” as “difficult,” “having a negative attitude,” “not a team player,” and “problematic” as sex stereotypes that show discrimination. For similar reasons, in Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 853 F.3d 339, 351–52 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc) the Seventh Circuit held that a female plaintiff could state a Title VII claim under a sex stereotyping theory. In Christiansen v. Omnicom Grp., Inc., 852 F.3d 195, 200–01 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) the Second Circuit likewise held that the plaintiff employee stated a plausible Title VII claim based on a gender stereotyping theory. As did the Third Circuit, in Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc., 579 F.3d 285, 290 (3d Cir. 2009) (collecting cases, noting “the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits discrimination against women for failing to conform to a traditionally feminine demeanor and appearance”). In Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874–75 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit applied Price Waterhouse in the context of sex discrimination against a male employee, observing that “the holding in Price Waterhouse applies with equal force to a man who is discriminated against for acting too feminine.” Similarly, in Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir. 2000), the court noted that Title VII forbids “[d]iscrimination because one fails to act in the way expected of a man or woman”). The First Circuit applied Price Waterhouse in Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., 194 F.3d 252, 261 n.4 (1st Cir. 1999), observing that “a woman can ground an action on a claim that men discriminated against her because she did not meet stereotyped expectations of femininity.”

For some additional examples of stereotyping discrimination in the trial courts, see Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 302 F. Supp. 3d 730, 746 (E.D. Va. 2018) (discussing the gender-stereotyping theory of Price Waterhouse, collecting cases, and concluding claims of discrimination on the basis of failure to conform with gender-based societal expectations are “per se sex discrimination under Title VII[.]”); and Klings v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 2010 WL 1292256, *11, *15-16 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2010) (complaints that the female plaintiff had an “abrasive personality” and was “condescending” could reflect a “gender bias: that women do not have leadership and motivational skills, [and] cannot manage aggressively[.]”).

In summary, Price Waterhouse was an important case because, among other things, it confirmed that Title VII’s language prohibiting discrimination “because of sex” includes a prohibition on gender stereotyping.

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.

Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co.: Burden of Proving Off-the-Clock Work

The Supreme Court classic Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946),  concerned the extent to which employees’ pre-work activities are compensable working time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (for the text of the FLSA, go here). The case also addressed which party has the burden of proving how much time employees spend engaged in compensable working time. In short, the Supreme Court held that preliminary work activities, like putting on uniforms or preparing tools, were controlled by the employer and performed for the employer’s benefit, are properly included as working time under the FLSA. The Court further held that under the FLSA employees must be compensated for significant time spent preparing to work at the job site. The Court also decided the employer has the burden of proof for determining the exact wages owed to employees who perform off-the-clock work.

As discussed in an earlier post, Section 7(a) of the FLSA defines working time, and requires employers to pay overtime wages under certain circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 207(a). Section 11(c) of the FLSA requires employers to keep accurate records regarding time on the job. 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). Section 16(b) of the FLSA enables employees to sue to recover lost wages. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

Facts

Mt. Clemens Pottery Company employed 1,200 workers at an 8-acre Michigan facility. The plant was about 400 meters long. The employees entered the plant on one side, and worked on the other side. 328 U.S. 682-83.

A time clock was located near the entrance. The employer gave employees 14 minutes between each shift to punch the time clock, walk to their respective workbench and prepare for work. It took a minimum of eight minutes for all the employees to get by the time clock. The estimated walking time for employees ranged from 30 seconds to three minutes, but some workers needed as many as eight minutes to reach their workbenches. Upon arriving at their workbenches, employees were required to put on aprons or overalls, remove shirts, tape or grease arms, put on finger cots, prepare equipment, turn on switches, open windows, and/or assemble or sharpen tools. These kinds of “preparatory activities” took three to four minutes. Id.

The employer calculated working time under the FLSA based on the time cards punched by the clocks. The employer then deducted walking and preparatory time from the time cards based on the punched time and assumptions about how long prep work and walking would take on average. 328 U.S. 683-84.

Seven employees and their labor union brought a collective action under Section 16(b) of the FLSA, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated workers. The suit alleged that the employer’s calculations did not accurately reflect the time actually worked and that they were deprived of the proper amount of overtime compensation. In short, the employees claimed that the employer’s method of computation (i.e. deducting time from their recorded time at the worksite to eliminate time spent on preliminary activities) did not accurately reflect all the time actually worked. Therefore, the employees argued, they were thereby deprived of the proper overtime compensation guaranteed them by Section 7(a) of the FLSA. The employees claimed, among other things, that all employees worked approximately 56 minutes more per day than the employer gave them credit for and that, in any event, all the time between the hours punched on their time cards constituted compensable working time. 328 U.S.C. 684.

The Court’s Decision

The Court held that when an employee sues her employer under the FLSA for unpaid minimum wages or unpaid overtime pay, claiming the employer has kept inadequate records of the employee’s time actually worked, and the employee produces sufficient evidence to show the amount of work for which the employee was not properly compensated as a matter of “just and reasonable inference,” the burden shifts to the employer to produce evidence of the precise amount of work performed or with evidence to negate the reasonableness of the inference favoring the employee. 328 U.S.C. § 687. If the employer fails to produce such evidence, the court may then award damages to the employee, even though the result may only be approximate, based on a reasonable estimate of amount of time the employee worked without compensation. Id. In other words, where the employer has not kept accurate records of all the time an employee works, the employer cannot complain that the unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay awarded to the employee lack the exactness that would have been possible had the employer kept accurate records. Id.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that Section 11(c) of the FLSA imposed upon the employer, not the worker, the duty to keep proper records of wages, hours and other conditions and practices of employment. Where an employer fails to keep accurate records of time worked (i.e. including time worked off the clock, or time spent conducting preliminary activities before clocking in), the law does not deny recovery on the ground that the employee is unable to prove the precise extent of her uncompensated work. That approach, the Court reasoned, would create a strong disincentive for employers to keep any records at all and shift the burden of time-keeping back onto the employee. The Court therefore concluded that “an employee has carried out his burden if he proves that he has in fact performed work for which he was improperly compensated and if he produces sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.” 328 U.S. at 687.

The Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine how much time (on average) was spent walking and how much time doing preparatory activities and to enter an award of lost wages based only the amount of time engaged in preparatory activity.

Analysis

In practical terms, the Court’s decision in Mt. Clemens Pottery meant that once an employee testifies she has not been fully compensated for all the time she worked, the employer has the burden of proof for determining the exact wages owed to the employee for performing off-the-clock work. If the employer has not kept complete records of all time worked, including off-the-clock work, the employee may be awarded unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay based on a just and reasonable estimate of the uncompensated time she worked.

In light of the Court’s ruling in Mt. Clemens Pottery, in 1947 Congress amended the FLSA by enacting the Portal to Portal Act of 1947. 29 U.S.C. § 251, et seq. Among other things, the Portal to Portal Act sought to impose some limits on employer liability for time employees spent in “preliminary and postliminary” activity. 29 U.S.C. § 254(a).

The Supreme Court reaffirmed Mt. Clemens Pottery in the 2016 case Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016). In so holding, the Court reiterated that “where an employer violated its statutory duty to keep proper records, the [Mt. Clemens Pottery] Court concluded the employees could meet their burden by proving that they in fact ‘performed work for which [they were] improperly compensated and … produc[ing] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter of just and reasonable inference.’” 136 S. Ct. 1036, 1040 (2016) (quoting Mt. Clemens Pottery, 328 U.S. at 687.)

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.

Griggs v. Duke Power: Disparate Impact Without Discriminatory Intent

The Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), addressed the Title VII issues created by employer policies that are facially neutral, but which adversely impact employees on the basis of race, sex, or religion. In short, the Griggs Court decided that where an employer uses a neutral policy or rule, or utilizes a neutral test, and this policy or test disproportionately affects minorities or women in an adverse manner, then the neutral rule or test violates Title VII unless the employer proves it is justified by “business necessity.”

Summary

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from treating employees differently because of their race, sex, or religion. This means, obviously, that an employer cannot refuse to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s race. But sometimes employers may implement policies, or require applicants to take tests, that work to disadvantaged members of one sex, race, or religion over others — even though the employer may not have intended the policy or test to have that effect. For example, in Griggs, Duke Power had a policy that required employees in all but its lowest-paying jobs to have a high school diploma or pass “intelligence” tests. There was no evidence Duke Power intended this policy to discriminate against minority workers. The employees in Griggs argued this policy violated Title VII because it disproportionately impacted black workers.

The Griggs Court reasoned that Congress designed Title VII to address the consequences of employment practices and not just the employer’s motivation. Therefore, a neutrally-worded employment policy or test that has the effect of disproportionately impacting employees of one sex, race, or religion, may be unlawful under Title VII even if the employer did not intend that policy or test to be discriminatory in that way. The Griggs decision made it possible for employees to challenge employment practices that disadvantage certain groups if the employer cannot show the policy is justified by business necessity and paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which codified the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination endorsed by Griggs.

Facts

Before Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Duke Power intentionally discriminated against African-American employees by only allowing these employees to work in the company’s low-paying labor department. In 1955, the company implemented a policy requiring potential employees to have a high school diploma before they could work in any department except for the labor department. After the Civil Rights Act went into effect in 1965, Duke Power extended this policy to block employees who had not graduated high school from transferring or being promoted from its labor department to other departments within the company. Duke Power later amended this policy to allow employees who had not graduated high school to transfer from labor to other departments provided they were able to garner certain scores on “intelligence” tests. Here’s an article about the history behind this case.

Griggs filed a class action on behalf of twelve African American employees, claiming this diploma/testing policy violated Title VII by disproportionately impacting black workers. The case did not involve evidence that Duke Power intended its policy to harm black workers. The issue, then, was whether an employer’s facially neutral policy or test could violate the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII on the grounds that the policy had the effect of disadvantaging minority workers.

Procedural Posture

The trial court dismissed the complaint. Griggs appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding that in the absence of a discriminatory purpose, Duke Power’s policy requiring a high school diploma or passing an “intelligence” test as a condition of employment was lawful under the Civil Rights Act. The Fourth Circuit, therefore, rejected Griggs’ claim that because Duke Power’s policy operated to render ineligible for employment a disproportionately high number of minority workers, the policy violated Title VII’s anti-discrimination provisions unless the employer proved the policy was job-related.

The Court’s Decision

The Court reversed. It held that Title VII prohibited Duke Power from requiring employees to produce a high school diploma or pass an “intelligence” test as a condition of employment, because Duke Power failed to show that these standards were significantly related to successful job performance, and both requirements operated to disqualify minority workers at a substantially higher rate than white applicants. The Court also observed that the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of Duke Power’s long-standing practice of giving preference to whites.

The Court pointed out that Congress’ objective for Title VII was to “achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees.” 401 U.S. at 429–30. Therefore, under Title VII, “practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to ‘freeze’ the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.” Id. at 430. Intent is not dispositive. Title VII requires “the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.” Id. at 431.

The critical point here was the Court’s understanding that “good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.” Id. at 432; see also Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701 et seq., 703(a) (2), (h), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., 2000e–2(a) (2), (h). Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.” 401 U.S. at 431.

After all, Congress intended Title VII to address “the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation.” Id. at 432. More than that, Title VII places on the employer “the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.” Id. Therefore, an employer’s facially-neutral policy or test can violate the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII if the policy has the effect of disadvantaging minority workers, and the employer fails to prove the policy or test is justified by “business necessity.” Id. at 431. “If an employment practice which operates to exclude [minority workers] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.” Id.

Analysis

After Griggs, a neutrally-worded employment policy or test that has the effect of disproportionately impacting employees of one sex, race, or religion, may be unlawful under Title VII even if the employer did not intend that policy or test to be discriminatory in that way. The Griggs decision made it possible for employees to challenge employment practices that disadvantage certain groups if the employer cannot show the policy is justified by business necessity. Griggs also paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (text here) which codified the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination endorsed by Griggs. In contrast to disparate treatment cases, which often turn on evidence of the employer’s intent, disparate impact cases commonly use statistical analyses to assess whether an employer’s policy or test runs afoul of Title VII by disproportionately harming employees of a certain race(s), sex, or religion.

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.

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green: A Framework for Analyzing Discriminatory Intent Using Indirect Evidence

In the landmark McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Supreme Court described a burden-shifting framework by which employees can prove their employers engaged in unlawful discrimination under Title VII without any “direct” evidence of discriminatory intent. The enduring aspect of this case was the Court’s description of the burden-shifting proof framework, and not so much the outcome of particular factual case before it.

Summary

In short, McDonnell Douglas clarified that even if an employee lacks direct evidence of intentional discrimination (like a statement from her boss saying, “We’re firing you because of your race”), the employee can still prevail on a claim of intentional discrimination by presenting only indirect or circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of her employer’s discriminatory intent (like evidence that her boss replaced her with a less qualified employee of a different race). The opinion describes an order of presenting proof and shifting burdens to help courts analyze discrimination claims where the plaintiff has chosen to proceed using purely indirect or circumstantial evidence.

Facts

Green was a black mechanic, lab technician, and civil rights activist. He worked for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a St. Louis aerospace company, until his termination in 1964. After his discharge, Green participated in a protest against McDonnell Douglas in which he asserted that his termination had been racially motivated and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The protest involved a “stall-in” in which protesters parked vehicles to block the roads leading to one of the company’s factories. Green was arrested for obstructing traffic. After the protest, McDonnell Douglas publicly advertised a job opening for qualified mechanics. Green applied for the position. Although Green was a qualified mechanic, McDonnell Douglas declined to hire him. McDonnell Douglas later defended this decision not to hire Green on the grounds that Green had engaged in illegal traffic-obstructing conduct while participating in the protest.

Procedural Posture

Green filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging McDonnell Douglas refused to rehire him on the basis of race and retaliation in violation of Title VII. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe McDonnell Douglas’ rejection of Green’s reemployment application violated the anti-retaliation provision of §704(a) of Title VII. That section forbids discrimination against applicants or employees for making any attempt to protest or rectify allegedly discriminatory employment conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). The EEOC made no finding as to Green’s allegation that McDonnell Douglas violated §703(a)(1) of Title VII, which prohibits racial and other types of status-based discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1).

Green filed suit. The District Court dismissed Green’s claims, holding that McDonnell Douglas refused to rehire Green because of his participation in illegal protest demonstrations, rather than his race or opposition to racial discrimination. The District Court ruled that Green’s (illegally) obstructing traffic in protest was not an activity protected by §704(a), and dismissed Green’s §703(a)(1) racial discrimination claim on the grounds that the EEOC had made no finding of racial discrimination in any employment decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the §704(a) retaliation claim. But it reversed the dismissal of Green’s §703(a)(1) racial discrimination claim, holding that an EEOC determination of reasonable cause was not a jurisdictional prerequisite to pursuing a discrimination claim in federal court violation. McDonnell Douglas appealed this decision. The Supreme Court granted cert.

The Court’s Decision: A Framework for Analyzing Indirect Evidence of Discrimination

In a 9-0 decision in favor of Green, the McDonnell Douglas Court described burden-shifting framework of organizing and evaluating indirect proof of discrimination. An employee may use this approach to show intentional discrimination by an employer in the absence of any direct evidence of discrimination. More than 45 years later, the McDonnell Douglas framework continues to guide lower courts’ summary judgment analyses of many discrimination and retaliation claims.

The McDonnell Douglas framework entails three discrete steps. First, the plaintiff employee must establish a prima facie case by presenting sufficient indirect evidence to give rise to an inference of discrimination. For example, in a non-hiring case, the employee can establish a prima facie case by presenting evidence that (1) the employee is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) the job was not offered to  her; and (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. Similarly, in a demotion or termination case, the employee can establish a prima facie of racial discrimination case by showing (1) that she is a member of a Title VII protected group, (2) that she was qualified for the position she held, (3) that she was demoted and/or discharged from that position, and (4) that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a someone of a different race. See, e.g., St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993).

If the employee can prove the elements of a prima facie case, the McDonnell Douglas analysis moves to the second step.

In that second step, the burden shifts to the defendant employer. The employer is allowed to offer a purported non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action suffered by the employer— such as the refusal to hire, or a termination. For example, in McDonnell Douglas, the employer argued that it refused to rehire Green not because of his race, but because he illegally obstructed traffic. Once the employer offers a non-discriminatory reason for its decision, the burden shifts back to the employee.

In that final step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff employee must be allowed the opportunity to demonstrate that the defendant’s proffered explanation is not consistent with a completely honest or unbiased view of the employee, making the explanation “pretext” for a discriminatory bias underlying the adverse employment action.

The Court therefore held that while the Court of Appeals correctly found Green proved a prima facie case of race discrimination, it erred in holding that McDonnell Douglas had failed to discharge its burden of presenting a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to not rehire Green (his participation in illegal traffic obstructing). Critically, the Court made clear that on remand the employee Green must be given a fair opportunity to show that his employer’s stated reason was a pretext for a racially discriminatory decision. The Court indicated that one way an employee in Green’s position could successfully demonstrate pretext was with comparator evidence — such as by showing that white employees who engaged in similar illegal activity were retained or hired by McDonnell Douglas. Other evidence that may be relevant at the pretext stage, depending on the circumstances, could include evidence that the employer had discriminated against the respondent when he was an employee, or followed a discriminatory policy toward minority employees. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804-05. This framework and its application has been the topic of much scholarly literature.

The McDonnell Douglas Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that an employee’s right to bring suit under Title VII is not confined to charges as to which the EEOC has made a reasonable cause finding.

Analysis

McDonnell Douglas clarified that even if an employee lacks direct evidence of intentional discrimination (like an admission from a supervisor that the employee was fired because of her race), the employee can still prevail on a claim of intentional discrimination by presenting only indirect or circumstantial evidence that supports an inference of her employer’s discriminatory intent (like evidence that her boss replaced her with a less qualified employee of a different race). The opinion there describes an order of presenting proof and shifting burdens to help courts analyze discrimination claims that turn on purely indirect or circumstantial evidence. First, the employee must establish a prima facie case which will give rise to an inference of discrimination. Second, the employer is allowed to offer a purported non-discriminatory reason for its adverse action against the plaintiff. And in the final step of this framework, the employee must be allowed the opportunity to show that the employer’s proffered explanation is just pretext for discriminatory bias.

It is worth noting that for an employee to prove unlawful discrimination, the McDonnell Douglas proof framework is not required. Rather “discrimination may be proven through direct and indirect evidence or through the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 572 (4th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added) (citing Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 49-50 & n3 (2003)). As noted above, direct evidence is “evidence of conduct or statements that both reflect[s] directly the alleged discriminatory attitude and … bear[s] directly on the contested employment decision.” Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 520 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219, 232 (4th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

The McDonnell Douglas framework turns on circumstantial evidence and inference, having the employee demonstrate the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for termination is “unworthy of credence.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981). “The Supreme Court constructed the elements of the [McDonnell Douglas] prima facie case to give

plaintiffs who lack direct evidence a method for raising an inference of discrimination.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 318 (4th Cir. 2005) (citing Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253–54 and Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 855 (9th Cir. 2002), aff’d, 539 U.S. 90 (2003)).

Where “a plaintiff has direct evidence of discrimination … the McDonnell Douglas framework is of little value[.]” Id. at 318 n4 (citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 271 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting that the Supreme Court has suggested that the burden-shifting framework is inapplicable where a plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination)).

An employee who has direct evidence of discrimination, or a combination of direct and indirect evidence, may therefore prove her claims without using the McDonnell Douglas method.

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.

 

Originally published on timcoffieldattorney.com