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...

Ninth Circuit Adopts Single Test For Employee/Independent Contractor Determinations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held—consistent with other courts that have considered the issue—that “insurance agents are independent contractors and not employees for purposes of various federal employment statutes,” including ERISA, the ADEA, and Title VII.  In Murray v. Principal Financial Group, Inc., case number 09-16664, the panel unanimously affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of a purported employer because it found that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee entitled to the protections of Title VII.  The panel’s opinion clarifies the appropriate test for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors in the context of Title VII, and concludes that despite apparent precedent for multiple tests, there is, in fact, only one.

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.

Disparate Impact Claims Ruled Timely Based On Continued Use Of Hiring Test

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that claims brought by African American firefighters who had sued the City of Chicago alleging that a hiring test was discriminatory were not time barred.  Lewis v. City of Chicago, No. 08-974, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).  The City conceded that its use of the hiring test was unlawful, but argued that the firefighters claims were untimely.  Addressing only the statute of limitations issue, the Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of the firefighters, holding that the firefighters timely filed a disparate impact claim based on the continued use of the hiring test.

Continue Reading...

Proposed Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act May Alter Other Discrimination And Retaliation Statutes

Committees in both the House and the Senate heard testimony this week regarding the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act (H.R. 3721 and S. 1756).  Democrats introduced the Act last fall with hopes of restoring employees’ rights under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) by overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs. Inc., 557 U.S. __ (2009).

Continue Reading...

Pick On Mom At Your Own Peril: The Emerging Trend Of Family Responsibilities Discrimination

Think you are doing your pregnant employee a favor by taking her off a big account to give her some time “for herself”?  Think again!  You may just be opening yourself up for a lawsuit.

Most employers have never heard of Family Responsibilities Discrimination (“FRD”).  FRD is an umbrella term for workplace discrimination based on stereotypes about how employees with family caregiving responsibilities will or should act.  For example, an employer may assume that a new mother will not be as committed to her career or as reliable as she was before she had a baby.  Or an employer might believe that a mother “should” be home with her children and may refuse to give her assignments that require travel or late hours. The discrimination arises because the employer’s actions are based on stereotypical beliefs, rather than on the individual employee’s performance or own desires.  And family caregiving is not just limited to childcare.  In fact, an increasing proportion of caregiving is devoted to the elderly and disabled. As with childcare, women are disproportionately responsible for caring for their relatives, including parents, spouses, and other relatives.

Continue Reading...

Ninth Circuit: Judges Must Decide Front Pay Awards In FMLA Cases

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that whether a plaintiff with a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can recover front pay (and how much) is a question for a judge to decide, not a jury.  Under some statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, courts have express discretion to “order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement … or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).  It is well established under Title VII that a court can decide to substitute front pay for reinstatement in some instances, such as when there is a significant degree of animosity between the parties or when reinstatement could displace other employees.

Continue Reading...

EEOC Stung by $5 Million Fee Award For Failing to Adequately Investigate or Engage in Good Faith Conciliation

In an order issued on February 9, 2010, a United States District Judge in Iowa sent a stark reminder to the EEOC that its statutory obligations to investigate and conciliate Title VII claims are not to be ignored.  More than three years after the EEOC filed its complaint alleging systemic sex harassment, the court, in its February 9 order, awarded Defendant CRST Van Expedited, Inc. ("CRST") $4.5 million in attorneys' fees and $460,000.00 in expenses as a prevailing party, following a finding that the EEOC abandoned its statutory obligations under Title VII.

Continue Reading...

Obama Announces Major Budget Increases for EEOC and DOJ Civil Rights Division

The Obama Administration announced on February 1, 2010, that it requested $385.3 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for fiscal year 2011.  In addition, the administration requested $162 million for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.  Significantly, the requests represent an $18 million dollar budget increase for the EEOC and a $17 million dollar budget increase for the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

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...

Restrictions On Use Of Genetic Information Become Effective November 21, 2009

Title II of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) covering employment goes into effect on November 21, 2009.  GINA, which was enacted in May 2008, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information and from intentionally acquiring genetic information from employees or applicants.  The Act also imposes strict confidentiality requirements on employers, and requires them to segregate and maintain all such information in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Continue Reading...

ENDA Moves Closer To Passage

On November 5, 2009, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held an initial hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, S. 1584 (“ENDA” or “the Act”).  ENDA would prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, which currently are not prohibited factors under federal law or under the laws of a majority of states.

Continue Reading...

Three New EEOC Commissioners Recently Nominated

President Obama recently nominated Victoria A. Lipnic for a seat on the five-member Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  Lipnic is Republican, with an extensive background in employment law.  During the prior Administration, she served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment Standards from 2002-2009.  In that capacity, Lipnic oversaw the Department of Labor’s largest agency, and led the teams that revised the Part 541 overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations.
 

Continue Reading...

EEOC Guidance re: Waiver and Release Agreements

On July 15, 2009, the EEOC issued guidance entitled "Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements." In this guidance, the EEOC generally explains the waiver of discrimination claims through release agreements and answers questions employees may have about the effect of those agreements on the filing of charges of discrimination and on severance pay. These questions include the following: "May I still file a charge with the EEOC if I believe I have been discriminated against based on my age, race, sex or disability, even if I signed a waiver releasing my employer from all claims?" and "If I file a charge with the EEOC after signing a waiver, will I have to return my severance pay?"  (The EEOC’s answers to these questions are “yes,” and “no,” respectively.)  The EEOC also explains its position on what constitutes a "knowing and voluntary" waiver under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Equal Pay Act, and what is required for a waiver to be effective under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In view of the fact that the EEOC has taken the effort to publish this guidance, and considering that the current administration has served notice that federal agencies like the EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce the nation's labor and employment laws, employers should have their current release agreements reviewed by labor and employment counsel.