Hunton Profile

Class Actions Task Force

Our Labor and Employment attorneys understand that employment class, collective, and mass action litigation presents special risks to employers, and are fully prepared to help employers maneuver through the special challenges these complex cases present.
 
Read More...

Law Firm Shareholder Does Not Qualify To Bring Workplace Discrimination Claims

According to recent federal court decisions, a shareholder, director, or other individual holding a similar position in a corporation may find his or her job status disqualifies him or her from legal relief under many state and federal anti-discrimination laws should such individual believe that he or she has been the subject of unfair treatment in the workplace. In Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., No. 09-4498 (3rd Circuit July 14, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a law firm shareholder was not an “employee” of the professional corporation protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

Continue Reading...

Seventh Circuit Holds Nursing Home Violated Title VII In Accommodating Resident's "White-Only" Request

An Indiana nursing home was found in violation of Title VII this month for acceding  to a resident’s request for white-only healthcare providers.  In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., No. 09-3661 (7th Cir. July 20, 2010), a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the nursing home and held that this was a clear violation of Title VII.

The nursing home, Plainfield Healthcare Center (“PHC”), housed a resident who did not want assistance from black nursing assistants.  PHC complied with this racial preference by detailing on an assignment sheet, which employees received daily, that no black nursing assistants should enter the particular resident’s room or provide her with care.  The court held that this policy violated Title VII by creating a racially-charged and hostile work environment, as the assignment sheet unambiguously and daily reminded plaintiff, a black nursing assistant, that certain residents preferred no black nursing assistants, and that unlike white aides, plaintiff was restricted in the rooms she could enter, the care that she could provide, and the patients she could assist.

PHC argued that long-term care facilities have obligations to their clients that place them in a different position than most employers.  PHC further argued that Indiana regulations state that long-term care residents have a right to choose a personal attending physician and other providers of services, and that without the policy, PHC risked exposing black employees to racial harassment from the residents and therefore exposing itself to hostile workplace liability.  The court found all of these arguments unavailing, instead offering several alternative courses of action that PHC could have taken, such as:

  • Warning residents before admitting them of the facility’s non-discrimination policy, and securing in writing each resident’s consent to the policy;
  • Assigning staff based on race-neutral criteria that would minimize the risk of conflict;
  • Advising its employees that they could ask for protection from racially harassing residents; and/or
  • If racially-biased residents wished to employ white aides at their own expense, allowing reasonable access to those aides.

While this case is particularly relevant for providers of long-term care, it also serves as a reminder to all employers that if they cater to customers’ perceived racial preferences, they may be found in violation of Title VII.  Employers faced with customers who demand service-providers of a certain race or ethnicity should, in lieu of formulating policies that accede to such demands, seek the advice of legal counsel to devise solutions that will not run afoul of Title VII.

Texas Supreme Court: Sexual Harassment Plaintiff's Recovery Limited To Statutory Damages Scheme

In Waffle House v. Cathie Williams, the Texas Supreme Court on June 11, 2010, rejected the idea that a plaintiff who prevailed on a sexual harassment claim under §21.0015 of the Texas Labor Code could instead opt to recover damages under a more generous common law scheme. The Court held that plaintiff could only recover under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA).

Continue Reading...

Cleaning up Workplace Banter

In a decision issued last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that gender-derogatory words and conduct that are either severe or pervasive may state a claim of a hostile work environment, even when the words at issue are not directed specifically at the plaintiff. Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., 11th Cir. (en banc), No. 07-10270, January 20, 2010.

Continue Reading...

New Means of Communication: Employee Text Messaging Presents Unique Employment Issues

The Supreme Court last week agreed to decide whether a California police department violated the privacy rights of an employee police officer by reading sexually-explicit text messages on the officer’s employer-issued pager.  The case, Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Company, is on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that in certain circumstances a public employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal text messages -- even when those messages are sent on a device owned and provided by the employer. The decision is directly at odds with current employee privacy law, which generally holds that employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications on employer-provided electronic devices, and it adds to the list of headaches for employers adjusting to the exploding use of instant messaging in the workplace.

Continue Reading...