On May 24, the Supreme Court issued two employment-related opinions.  The first, Lewis v. Chicago, concerned the filing deadline for disparate impact discrimination cases under Title VII.  The black firefighter plaintiffs in the case sought to challenge a written test used for determining promotions.  The question is whether their statute of limitations began running when the test was scored, or when the test results were actually used to determine promotion decisions.  Reversing the Seventh Circuit, the Court unanimously held (Scalia writing) that it was the latter because it was the use of the test results that could constitute an “employment practice” challengable under Title VII.  The case likely will return to the trial court, where the plaintiffs had originally won before the appeals.  Additional coverage is here.

The second case, Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., concerns when plaintiffs in ERISA actions can receive attorneys’ fees for succeeding in their case.  ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) is the statue that governs employee benefits plans.  In this case, the plaintiff challenged the insurance company’s denial of her long-term disability benefits, and after a court found she would likely prevail, the insurance company awarded her the benefits.

In a nearly unanimous opinion (Thomas writing) reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Court held that a party who seeks to recover attorney’s fees in an ERISA case does not need to be a “prevailing party.”  Instead, a court may award fees and costs under the statute if the claimant has achieved “some degree of success on the merits.”  Thus, the trial court here was correct in awarding the plaintiff attorneys’ fees for basically succeeding in obtaining her benefits.  More coverage here and here.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Attorney Fees, Case Commentary, Disparate Impact, ERISA, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Long-term Disability Benefits, Racial Discrimination, Statute of Limitations, Title VII, US Supreme Court

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued a ringing opinion for employees in Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Lines, a gender discrimination case until Title VII.  The Court’s discussion of gender discrimination, sex stereotyping, and a corporate culture of discrimination is excellent and will make very useful precedent.  A long-ish discussion is therefore in order.  As the Court stated though, the quick summary is that plaintiff “Deborah Merritt’s story is one of a certain grit and perseverance.”

Old Dominion is a nationwide trucking firm that employs thousands as “line haul” drivers and “pickup and delivery” drivers.  Line haul drivers travel across state lines and often spend nights and weekends away from home, while pickup and delivery drivers work locally and rarely work nights or weekends.  The pickup and delivery job requires more lifting and therefore is more physically demanding than line haul driver.

Merritt worked for Old Dominion for six years as a line haul driver based in Greensboro, North Carolina, before she sought a travel and pickup delivery driver job so she could spend more time at home. Beginning in 2002, Merritt applied for several open pickup and delivery positions at Old Dominion’s Lynchburg, Va., facility, but initially was turned down for jobs that went to less-experienced male drivers.  Various managers alleged stated that women were not suited to be pickup drivers.

Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Gender, Greensboro, Labor and Employment, Pretext, Sex Stereotyping, Title VII, Trucking

In Whitten v. Fred’s, Inc., the Fourth Circuit issued an important ruling in a sexual harassment case.  The Court concluded that the company-defendant could held liable for sexual harassment by its manager, even if the manager did not have the authority to fire the harassed worker.   Although the Court was addressing state law claims, South Carolina anti-discrimination law mirrors federal law, and the Court based its decision on federal case law.  So, it seems that its decision would apply to federal Title VII claims as well.

The plaintiff Clara Whitten was an assistant manager at Fred’s, a department store.  Matt Green worked with Whitten as the store’s manager.  After being transferred to Green’s store, Whitten only worked two days at the store before she felt compelled to quit because of sexual harassment from Green.  Whitten alleged that Green rubbed his genitals against Whitten on two separate occasions, that Green punished her by changing her schedule and giving her undesirable tasks because Whitten did not want to spend any time alone with Green, and that Green was verbally abusive. Read more…

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Bankruptcy, Case Commentary, Constructive Discharge, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Sexual Harassment, Title VII

In King v. McMillan, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and the court’s rulings in a sexual harassment case.  The plaintiff, a former deputy in a sheriff’s office, had been sexually harassed by the sheriff over several years.   A jury awarded her compensatory and punitive damages on her claims of battery and sexual harassment under Title VII.  The Court upheld the awards, the substitution of the correct defendant, and the admission of testimony of other female employees who had been sexually harassed by the same sheriff.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Battery, Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Punitive Damages, Sexual Harassment, Title VII

In Brown v. Nucor Corporation, the 4th Circuit reversed the district court on the question of class certification.  Under Title VII, the plaintiffs had brought racial discrimination claims of disparate treatment and disparate impact with regard to promotion practices, as well as hostile work environment claims.  The majority concluded that the plaintiffs could proceed with all of these claims as a class action becuase the requirements of Rule 23 had been met.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Class Action, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Title VII

In EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc., the 4th Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer.  The court concluded that there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the plaintiff suffered from severe racial and sexual harassment in the workplace.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Title VII