You are here: Home TITLE VII

Voluntary Benefits Provided in a Discriminatory Manner May Constitute an Adverse Employment Action

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 01:04

A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, emphasizes that if an employer provides benefits in a discriminatory manner that may constitute an adverse employment action even if the employer is not required to provide the benefits. Further, Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory employment actions. The case involves Karla Gerner, who sued her former employer, Chesterfield County, Virginia ("County"), claiming that the County unlawfully discriminated against her by offering her a less favorable severance package than that offered male employees holding similar positions. Gerner worked for the County for more than twenty-five years and always received “positive performance evaluations.”  In 2009, County officials advised Gerner that due to reorganization, her position was being eliminated. They asked her to sign a severance agreement that included three months of pay and health benefits in exchange for a voluntary resignation and waiver of any cause of action against the County. Gerner refused to sign the agreement, and upon receipt of her right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) she filed a lawsuit against the County alleging disparate treatment on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. Specifically, Gerner alleged that the County did not offer her the same “sweetheart” severance package offered to her male counterparts, which included offers of transfers to other positions with less responsibility (and the same salary and benefits) or being kept on the payroll with benefits of up to 6 months to enhance their retirement benefits. The district court dismissed Gerner’s complaint, on the ground that she failed to allege a Title VII claim because the County’s allegedly discriminatory denial of severance benefits did not constitute an adverse employment action unless the benefits were a “contractual entitlement.”

On appeal, the court held that if a benefit is part of the employment relationship it may not be “doled out in a discriminatory fashion” even if the employer is not required to offer the benefit.  Thus, benefits that an employer is not required to provide, such as a severance package, may still qualify as a privilege of employment and as such provide the basis for a Title VII action if the benefits are provided in a discriminatory manner thereby constituting an adverse employment action. The court emphasized that if the “employee did not volunteer for a change in employment benefits or retain a job in lieu of a new benefit, courts have consistently recognized that the discriminatory denial of a non-contractual employment benefit constitutes an adverse employment action.” The court further highlighted that “Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory adverse employment actions. Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer "to discriminate against any individual" on the basis of membership in a protected class. Courts have consistently interpreted this intentionally broad language to apply to potential, current, and past employees.” Read More. 

Employer Pays $140k for Alleged Pregnancy Discrimination

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Thursday, 15 March 2012 20:06

Olam Americas, Inc., has settled a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for $140,000 and other relief, including providing annual EEO training to all employees at six manufacturing plants in central and northern California, along with more specialized training for managers and human resources staff. The EEOC charged that a jobseeker was denied an executive assistant position at Olam’s Fresno, California, facility allegedly due to her pregnancy. Olam Americas, Inc. is a supplier and processor of agricultural products and food ingredients. According to the EEOC, Olam initially offer a female job applicant an executive assistant position. However, within a very short period of time after disclosing that she was pregnant, Olam allegedly rescinded its offer of employment to her and then selected an alternate, non-pregnant candidate. Pregnancy discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC, commented that, “Employers should hire and retain the best qualified job applicants, irrespective of one’s gender or pregnancy…We commend Olam for working together with the EEOC to resolve this matter and we appreciate Olam’s efforts toward ensuring equal employment opportunities for all.” Read More.

Court Reverses $2 Million Dollar Judgment Against City of Los Angeles for Retaliation

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 06:53

The California Court of Appeal, 2nd District, has reversed a $2 million dollar judgment against the City of Los Angeles (City). The case involved Richard Joaquin, a Los Angeles Police Department officer, who complained of sexual harassment by Sergeant James Sands. The department investigated and concluded that Joaquin’s complaint was unfounded. Sands then pursued a complaint against Joaquin for filing a false sexual harassment charge. Internal Affairs investigated Sand’s complaint, agreed that Joaquin’s charge was without merit, and recommended that the matter be adjudicated by a Board of Rights. The Board of Rights found that Joaquin fabricated the charges and recommended termination. Subsequently, Joaquin was terminated. Joaquin then filed a petition for writ of mandate. The superior court granted the petition and ordered Joaquin reinstated, concluding that the evidence did not support the Board of Rights’ findings. Joaquin was reinstated. He then filed suit against the City alleging that the City terminated him in retaliation for filing a sexual harassment complaint, in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). A jury agreed and awarded Joaquin more than $2 million for lost wages and emotional distress.

The City appealed, arguing that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. The 2nd District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the $2 million dollar judgment. Notably, in its decision the court focused in on the issue of whether “an employee may be disciplined if his or her employer concludes that the employee has fabricated a claim of sexual harassment, or whether such a complaint is insulated from discipline even where, as here, the employer determines that it was fabricated.” On this important point, the court noted that it was “not aware of any California case that has discussed” the matter although the question of whether “a false report of discrimination or harassment may lawfully be a basis for discipline has been addressed in federal cases interpreting title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” After reviewing several of these cases, the court concluded that “in appropriate circumstances, an employer may discipline or terminate an employee for making false charges, even where the subject matter of those charges is an allegation of sexual harassment.” Read More.

Employers Must Ensure That Pre-Employment Background Checks Are Not Discriminatory

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Friday, 13 January 2012 07:32

As a recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case demonstrates, employers must ensure that pre-employment background checks are not discriminatory. The case involves Pepsi Beverages (Pepsi), which has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination. Based on its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  According to the EEOC, more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that “disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment.” Pursuant to Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for permanent jobs even if they had never been convicted of any offense. Further, Pepsi’s former policy denied employment to job applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of minor offenses. The EEOC contends that the “use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.” Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office commented that, “When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position.  Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII…We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.” Read More.

Ministerial Exemption Bars Employee’s Claim Against Church for Wrongful Termination

  • Print
Article Information
Published on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:25

Sara Henry sued Red Hill Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tustin (“the Church”) for wrongful termination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy based upon her termination from the Red Hill Lutheran School (“the School”) which occurred because she was living with her boyfriend and raising their child together without being married. The Church was formed for nonprofit religious purposes and is tax exempt. The School is part of the church’s ministry and does not exist as a separate legal entity. Henry was an at-will employee of the Church. She started as a preschool teacher and became the director of the preschool in 2003. She continued teaching a preschool class in addition to her duties as director. Henry knew the School was “Bible-based.” Although teachers were not required to be Lutheran — Henry is Catholic — teachers were required to be practicing Christians “involved in a church-based setting on a regular basis.” Henry was married when she applied to the school for a teaching position. She subsequently divorced and gave birth to a child fathered by her boyfriend. While Henry was pregnant, she told representatives of the Church that she intended to get married, but was not ready to do so just yet. A pastor from the Church then met with Henry. They discussed her living with her boyfriend and he inquired as to whether Henry intended to marry him. Henry said she and her boyfriend intended to get married, but did not know when. She understood that her living arrangement was “contrary to the religious and moral beliefs of the church.” Henry also recognized before she became pregnant that living with boyfriend was contrary to the teachings of the Bible. The school subsequently terminated Henry’s employment for living with her boyfriend and raising their son together without being married, which the Church deemed to be a “failure to adhere with the Professional Expectations of the teaching staff in that her living arrangements were contrary to the religious beliefs of the church and school.”  Henry filed a complaint against the Church alleging that the Church terminated her employment based upon her marital status, in violation of the FEHA. The trial court held that the ministerial exception applied and entered judgment in favor of the Church. On appeal, the court affirmed holding that (1) Henry’s claim of wrongful termination under the FEHA was barred because the Church did not qualify as an “employer” under the FEHA; (2) Henry’s employment was terminated for religious reasons for which the Church and School are exempt under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act; and additionally, (3) Henry’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy was barred by the ministerial exception. Read More.

More Articles...

  1. Employer Must Pay $267,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Claim
  2. Employers Must Implement Consistent Disciplinary Policies and Procedures
  3. USCCR Recommends That Title VII be Amended to Permit “English Only” Policies
  4. Same Evidence May Be Used To Assess Sufficiency of Harassment and Retaliation Claims
  5. HR Practice Pointer: What is a BFOQ?
  6. Court Finds Abercrombie & Fitch Committed Religious Discrimination
  7. A Brief History of Title VII