Category Archives: Result for Employee

Age Discrimination, Constructive discharge, Hostile work environment, Result for Employee, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Fifth Circuit applies hostile work environment to age claims

1 Comment

Courts have some­times ques­tioned whether hos­tile work envi­ron­ment claims apply to all “fla­vors” of dis­crim­i­na­tion. Hos­tile work envi­ron­ment claims most fre­quent­ly arise in claims of sex dis­crim­i­na­tion  and race dis­crim­i­na­tion claims under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964, but age dis­crim­i­na­tion claims under fed­er­al law arise under a dif­fer­ent statute, the Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act of 1967.

The Fifth Cir­cuit direct­ly held recent­ly that hos­tile work envi­ron­ment claims are encom­passed by age dis­crim­i­na­tion claims under the ADEA in Dedi­ol v. Best Chevro­let, Inc., — F.3d — (5th Cir. Sep­tem­ber 12, 2011).

Con­tin­ue read­ing Fifth Cir­cuit applies hos­tile work envi­ron­ment to age claims →
Evidence issues, Medical Industry Litigation, Result for Employee, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, US Supreme Court, USERRA

US Supreme Court Rules for Employee on “Cat’s Paw” Theory

Leave a comment

The Unit­ed States Supreme Court recent­ly unan­i­mous­ly issued a major vic­to­ry for employ­ees under “USERRA”, the Uni­formed Ser­vices Employ­ment and Reem­ploy­ment Rights Act of 1994, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq., on the “cat’s paw” the­o­ry in employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion claims. The deci­sion was in Staub v. Proc­tor Hos­pi­tal, — U.S. — (March 1, 2011) (opin­ion at Google Schol­ar). Jus­tice Scalia wrote the opin­ion for the unan­i­mous court. Jus­tice Ali­to wrote an opin­ion con­cur­ring in the judg­ment, which Jus­tice Thomas joined. Jus­tice Kagan did not par­tic­i­pate in the decision.

What is the “Cat’s Paw” Scenario?

Drew's kitty-cat, HannaSo, what the heck is the “cat’s paw” the­o­ry? Does it explain why my cat, pic­tured at the left, is star­ing so intent­ly at you?

First, to define “cat’s paw” in a non-legal con­text, the Webster’s Online dic­tio­nary defines a “cat’s paw” as: “A per­son used by anoth­er to gain an end.” The term aris­es out of a fable in which a a shrewd mon­key tricks a cat into pulling roast­ing chest­nuts out of a fire—the cat gets its paw burned, and the mon­key gets the chest­nuts and scam­pers away unhurt.

Con­tin­ue read­ing US Supreme Court Rules for Employ­ee on “Cat’s Paw” The­o­ry →
Age Discrimination, Back and Front Pay Issues, Emotional Distress Damages, Evidence issues, Liquidated damages, Medical Industry Litigation, Result for Employee

Cleveland jury awards $900,000 against hospital in age discrimination case

Leave a comment

Ellen Simon, an attor­ney in Cleve­land who authors the excel­lent blog, Ellen Simon’s Employ­ee Rights Post, recent­ly tried an age dis­crim­i­na­tion claim for plain­tiff Glo­ria Parks (a phle­botomist) against Cleve­land’s Uni­ver­si­ty Hos­pi­tals Case Med­ical Cen­ter.

Ms. Parks had worked for the hos­pi­tal for 30 years when she was fired over a med­ical mis­take involv­ing her­self and anoth­er much younger employ­ee. The hos­pi­tal fired Ms. Parks, but not the much younger employee.

The jury returned a ver­dict in favor of the plain­tiff (Ms. Parks) for $450,000 for her eco­nom­ic loss and $450,000 for “oth­er com­pen­sato­ry dam­ages”, accord­ing to Ms. Simon’s blog arti­cle. Based on the lim­it­ed infor­ma­tion I have so far, it looks like the “oth­er com­pen­sato­ry dam­ages” was an award for emo­tion­al dis­tress, The jury did not award puni­tive dam­ages.

So the ver­dict totals $900,000, and Ms. Simon will file a request for attor­neys’ fees’ fees and expens­es. While it is not clear from the arti­cle so far, I sus­pect the case was assert­ed for age dis­crim­i­na­tion under Ohio’s Fair Employ­ment Prac­tices Act (and not the fed­er­al ADEA).

Con­tin­ue read­ing Cleve­land jury awards $900,000 against hos­pi­tal in age dis­crim­i­na­tion case →
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Fourth Circuit, Interest, Liquidated damages, Result for Employee

Back from the USSR: FMLA Retaliation, 4th Circuit Decision in Dotson v Pfizer

Leave a comment

Retal­i­a­tion law is one of the most devel­op­ing (and dan­ger­ous) areas of employ­ment law. I recent­ly spoke at the West Vir­ginia Employ­ment Lawyers Association’s annu­al con­fer­ence on retal­i­a­tion law, and I want­ed to go back and dis­cuss an impor­tant Fourth Cir­cuit deci­sion on the Fam­i­ly and Med­ical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.

Dotson v. Pfizer: Adoption and the FMLA

The deci­sion is Dot­son v. Pfiz­er Inc., 558 F.3d 284 (2009), and involved alle­ga­tions of retal­i­a­tion stem­ming from leave tak­en for an inter­na­tion­al adop­tion from Russia.

The jury award­ed $1,876 in dam­ages on the FMLA inter­fer­ence claim and $331,429.25 on FMLA retal­i­a­tion claim. The judge then award­ed $333,305.25 in statu­to­ry liq­ui­dat­ed dam­ages, $375,000 in attor­neys’ fees, and $14,264.88 in court costs. Both sides appealed. The Fourth Cir­cuit reject­ed all aspects of the employer’s appeal, but found the tri­al court made a mis­take in refus­ing to award the plain­tiff pre-judg­ment interest.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Back from the USSR: FMLA Retal­i­a­tion, 4th Cir­cuit Deci­sion in Dot­son v Pfiz­er →
Hostile work environment, Prompt remedial action, Result for Employee, Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, Summary Judgment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Single act may create hostile work environment, according to Seventh Circuit in Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority

Leave a comment

A few days ago, I post­ed my arti­cle on PAR Elec­tri­cal Con­trac­tors, Inc. v. Bev­elle , in which the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court ruled that a sin­gle episode involv­ing mul­ti­ple uses of the N‑word could cre­ate a racial­ly hos­tile work envi­ron­ment.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sev­enth Cir­cuit just released an opin­ion in Berry v. Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty, 618 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010), which rais­es the sim­i­lar issue: Can a sin­gle instance of sex­u­al harass­ment cre­ate a hos­tile work envi­ron­ment? And the answer was yes, depend­ing on the circumstances.

Ms. Berry is Sexually Harassed in a Single Incident

Cyn­thia Berry was an employ­ee at the Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty. She was on her break and sat at a pic­nic style table with three male co-work­ers. A fourth male co-work­er, Philip Carmichael, had fol­lowed her to the pic­nic area and ordered Ms. Berry to get up from the table. Offend­ed by Mr. Carmichael’s “com­mand­ing tone”, Ms. Berry remained seat­ed. Mr. Carmichael then sat down and “strad­dled the bench” so he was fac­ing one of the male co-work­ers at the pic­nic table, and so that Mr. Carmichael’s back was close to Ms. Berry. The oth­er three male co-work­ers got up from where they were seat­ed at the pic­nic table and moved to the oth­er end of the table. Then:

Berry says Carmichael remained where he was seat­ed and began rub­bing his back against her shoul­der. She jumped up, told him not to rub him­self against her, and sat down next to Hardy at the oth­er end of the table. At this point,
Berry says, Mar­shall began telling her to get up from the table again. Not want­i­ng Mar­shall to think he could order her around, she remained seat­ed, but began rub­bing her tem­ples to com­pose her­self. Accord­ing to Berry, she next felt Carmichael grab­bing her breasts and lift­ing her up from the bench. Hold­ing her in the air, he rubbed her but­tocks against the front of his body—from his chest to his penis—three times before bring­ing her to the ground with force. Berry land­ed off-bal­ance, with only one leg on the ground, and says Carmichael then pushed her into a fence. Upset and want­i­ng to avoid any men, she lay down in a bus for the rest of her shift.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Sin­gle act may cre­ate hos­tile work envi­ron­ment, accord­ing to Sev­enth Cir­cuit in Berry v. Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty →
Attorney's Fees, Back and Front Pay Issues, Constructive discharge, Emotional Distress Damages, Employment policies, Hostile work environment, Prompt remedial action, Race discrimination, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, WV Human Rights Act, WV Human Rights Commission, WV Supreme Court

The disastrous consequences of the N‑word in the workplace. Just ask Dr. Laura!

1 Comment

Okay, this arti­cle has noth­ing to do with Dr. Lau­ra Sch­lessinger and her “rant” in which she used the N‑word repeat­ed­ly on her radio pro­gram when respond­ing to an African-Amer­i­can caller. But the ensu­ing con­tro­ver­sy (see arti­cles for and against Dr. Lau­ra), and her deci­sion to end her long-run­ning radio pro­gram, high­light the extra­or­di­nary sig­nif­i­cance of the N‑word term in Amer­i­can society.

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly dealt with the N‑word in a case that high­lights the great risks for employ­ers when that word enters the workplace.

In PAR Elec­tri­cal Con­trac­tors, Inc. v. Bev­elle , 225 W. Va. 624, 695 S.E.2d 854, 2010 WL 2244096 (June 3, 2010) (per curi­am), the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court dealt with a claim of a racial­ly based hos­tile work envi­ron­ment under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act, and con­clud­ed that the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion was jus­ti­fied in find­ing for the employ­ee. The deci­sion was unan­i­mous. Click here for the WV Human Rights Com­mis­sion’s deci­sion which was affirmed by the WV Supreme Court.

A Single Day, With the N‑Word Again and Again

PAR Elec­tri­cal was build­ing “giant tow­ers” for a high volt­age elec­tri­cal trans­mis­sion line. Richard Wayne Bev­elle was hired by PAR Elec­tri­cal on March 22, 2005, and, after work­ing as a “ground­man” assem­bling the tow­er bases, was assigned to load heli­copters with parts to con­struct the tow­ers (this heli­copter job was described as a “gravy job” by the Human Rights Com­mis­sion). Mr. Bev­elle is African-American.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The dis­as­trous con­se­quences of the N‑word in the work­place. Just ask Dr. Lau­ra! →
Age Discrimination, Back and Front Pay Issues, Emotional Distress Damages, Jury verdicts, Punitive damages, Result for Employee, WV Human Rights Act

Charleston, WV Jury Awards $1.7m in Age Discrimination Case, 10–1‑09

Leave a comment

On Octo­ber 1, 2009, a jury in Charleston, Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia returned a ver­dict in an age dis­crim­i­na­tion case, award­ing James Nagy a total of $1,750,450.

The Lawsuit

James Nagy filed suit in Charleston in March 2008 against West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny, alleg­ing that he was fired in March 2007 because of his age at 53, after 23 years of employment.

James Nagy was rep­re­sent­ed by Maria W. Hugh­es and Stephen Weber at Kay Cas­to & Chaney PLLC. West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny was rep­re­sent­ed by Mychal Schulz at Dins­more & Shohl LLC.

The case is pend­ing in Cir­cuit Court in Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, before Judge Jen­nifer Bai­ley-Walk­er.

The Verdict

That $1,750,450 ver­dict con­sist­ed of:

Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

Under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act (which pro­hibits age and oth­er forms of dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place), Nagy’s coun­sel filed a motion addi­tion­al­ly request­ing attor­neys’ fees and expenses.

Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er award­ed the plain­tiff total attorney’s fees of $177,772.50, and $8,855.33 in expenses.

Appeal

The Defen­dant is in the process of appeal­ing.  The issue of attor­neys’ fees was resolved by Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er on June 8, 2010, so the appeal process is in its ear­ly stages as of the date of this arti­cle being updat­ed (July 31, 2010). As things devel­op in the appeal, I will update this article.

July 31, 2010

Harless wrongful discharge, Hostile work environment, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Medical Industry Litigation, Pleading requirements, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, WV Human Rights Act, WV Supreme Court

Sorry boss, I didn’t know you were having sex in the office!!

1 Comment

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly issued an opin­ion deal­ing with one of those stereo­typ­i­cal­ly awk­ward sit­u­a­tions, where an employ­ee alleged­ly stum­bles into a room where the boss is hav­ing sex with a co-work­er. The deci­sion was  Roth v. DeFe­lice­Care, Inc., 226 W. Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (June 8, 2010) (per curi­am). It was a 3–2 deci­sion, in which the 3‑vote major­i­ty con­sist­ed of Jus­tices Robin Davis, Mar­garet Work­man, and  Thomas McHugh. Jus­tices Menis Ketchum and Brent Ben­jamin dis­sent­ed, and Jus­tice Ketchum wrote a dis­sent­ing opinion.

The Facts–Sex at Work

These are the facts accord­ing to the com­plaint in the law­suit: Tri­cia Roth was a res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­pist work­ing at DeFe­lice­Care, Inc. in Ohio Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, and she was about to go on vaca­tion. She was direct­ed by Leslie DeFe­lice (the male boss/owner) to come to work some­time dur­ing the week­end pre­ced­ing her vaca­tion in June 2006. She was not told a spe­cif­ic time to come to work dur­ing that week­end. When she came to work as ordered, she “observed Defen­dant [Leslie] DeFe­lice and/or Michelle Kel­ly par­tial­ly clothed and in a com­pro­mis­ing posi­tion”. Mr. DeFe­lice instruct­ed Ms. Roth to go into a con­fer­ence room and wait–meanwhile Mr. DeFe­lice and the oth­er employ­ee got all their clothes back on. Mr. DeFe­lice then talked to Ms. Roth and told her to for­get about what she had just seen, and threat­ened Ms. Ross with the loss of her res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­py license and the loss of her employment.

Ms. Roth then went on vaca­tion. When she got back from vaca­tion and returned to work, she had a meet­ing with Mr. DeFe­lice that did­n’t go well. Ms. Roth told Mr. DeFe­lice that she had­n’t told any­one about his sex­u­al encounter at work. Mr. DeFe­lice pro­ceed­ed to fire Ms. Roth because “he did not like how she was dressed” and “he did not like the style[/]color of her hair”.

Ms. Roth Files Suit–Case Dismissed

Ms. Roth then filed suit on legal the­o­ries cen­ter­ing around sex dis­crim­i­na­tion and sex­u­al harass­ment, and–bada bing!–the case prompt­ly got dismissed.

Ms. Roth’s com­plaint (the doc­u­ment which starts the law­suit and describes the plain­tiff’s alle­ga­tions) focused on the sex­u­al inci­dent I have described above, but also made alle­ga­tions about oth­er sex­u­al harassment–I will dis­cuss those details below.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Sor­ry boss, I didn’t know you were hav­ing sex in the office!! →
Age Discrimination, Attorney's Fees, Back and Front Pay Issues, Emotional Distress Damages, Jury verdicts, Punitive damages, Result for Employee, WV Human Rights Act

Jackson County jury awards $2.1 million in age case

Leave a comment

On March 17, 2010, a jury in Jack­son Coun­ty in West Vir­ginia award­ed Jerold John Rice Jr. rough­ly $2.1 mil­lion in an age dis­crim­i­na­tion case against The Burke-Par­sons-Bowl­by Cor­po­ra­tion, Stel­la-Jones US Hold­ings Cor­po­ra­tion, and Stel­la-Jones, Inc., tried in Judge Thomas C. Evans III’s court.

Mr. Rice was rep­re­sent­ed by Mark Atkin­son and Paul Framp­ton at Atkin­son & Polak, PLLC, and the defen­dants were rep­re­sent­ed by Roger Wolfe at Jack­son & Kel­ly PLLC in Charleston, and Kevin Hyde at Foley & Lard­ner, LLP in Jack­sonville, Flori­da.

Here is a quick run-down of what was award­ed in the case:

  • Back pay: $142,659 award­ed by jury.
  • Pre-judg­ment inter­est: $11,791.84 from date of ter­mi­na­tion through trial.
  • Front pay: $1,991,332.00 award­ed by jury (from rough­ly age 48 through retire­ment age at 67).
  • Emo­tion­al dis­tress: $0.
  • Puni­tive dam­ages: Jury did not answer ques­tion affir­ma­tive­ly which would have allowed award of puni­tive damages.
  • Total judg­ment based on jury’s ver­dict: $2,145,782.84, plus post-judg­ment inter­est on that amount at 7% per annum.
  • Attor­neys’ fees: $117,235 award­ed by judge (based on $450 an hour for Mark Atkin­son and $300 per hour for Paul Framp­ton).
  • Lit­i­ga­tion expens­es: $20,324.16 award­ed by judge.
  • Total award: $2,283,342.00 (based on jury ver­dict, pre-judg­ment inter­est, attor­neys’ fees and expens­es) plus post-judg­ment inter­est at 7% per annum.

The Rice case illus­trates the risk employ­ers face when they ter­mi­nate an old­er, good, long-stand­ing employ­ee, and replace him or her with a much younger per­son with lit­tle or no expe­ri­ence for the employer.

What Happened?

Mr. Rice at the time of his ter­mi­na­tion (in 2009) was age 47 and had worked for Burke-Par­sons-Bowl­by Cor­po­ra­tion for 24 years. When Mr. Rice was ter­mi­nat­ed he was the cor­po­rate controller.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Jack­son Coun­ty jury awards $2.1 mil­lion in age case →
Federal Cases (but not US Supreme Court), Fourth Circuit, Medical Industry Litigation, Result for Employee, Sexual harassment, Summary Judgment

Was the boss “merely crude”, or was he sexually harassing her?

Leave a comment

Sex­u­al harass­ment claims fre­quent­ly require judges and juries to dis­tin­guish between “mere­ly crude” behav­ior, which does­n’t vio­late the employ­ee’s rights, and “sex­u­al harass­ment”, which does. The Fourth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals addressed that issue in EEOC v. Fair­brook Med­ical Clin­ic, PA, 609 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2010) (opin­ion at Fourth Cir­cuit’s site), and did­n’t have a lot of trou­ble con­clud­ing that the con­duct in issue could rea­son­ably be viewed by a jury as sex­u­al harass­ment, rul­ing in favor of the employ­ee. One of the key issues was whether the con­duct was “severe or per­va­sive” enough to con­sti­tute a “hos­tile work envi­ron­ment”.  The unan­i­mous opin­ion was writ­ten Judge J. Harvie Wilkin­son III, joined by Judges Andre M. Davis and C. Arlen Beam (from the Eighth Cir­cuit).

Doctor on Doctor Harassment at Fairbrook Medical Clinic

Stethoscope Dr. John Kessel was the own­er of Fair­brook Med­ical Clin­ic in South Car­oli­na, and was accused by a for­mer female doc­tor at the clin­ic, Dr. Deb­o­rah Waechter, of sex­u­al­ly harass­ing her. Dr. Kessel was Dr. Waechter’s super­vi­sor. Dr. Waechter worked for him for 3 years and quit, alleged­ly over a broad range of sex­u­al­ly explic­it state­ments made dur­ing most of those 3 years (I’ll dis­cuss the specifics below).

Dr. Waechter’s Lawsuit

Dr. Waechter then filed a charge of dis­crim­i­na­tion with the EEOC, alleg­ing that Dr. Kessel’s behav­ior cre­at­ed a “hos­tile work envi­ron­ment”, and the EEOC then filed suit on behalf of Dr. Waechter against Dr. Kessel’s clin­ic under Title VII of the Civ­il Rights Act of 1964.

After dis­cov­ery was con­duct­ed. Fair­brook Med­ical Clin­ic filed a motion for sum­ma­ry judg­ment, and the fed­er­al tri­al judge grant­ed it. The tri­al judge rea­soned that the offen­sive con­duct was “not par­tic­u­lar­ly fre­quent,” most­ly involved “the type of crude jokes that do not run afoul of Title VII,” did not cause Dr. Waechter to miss work or feel “severe psy­cho­log­i­cal stress,” and did not include inap­pro­pri­ate touch­ing or phys­i­cal threats.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Was the boss “mere­ly crude”, or was he sex­u­al­ly harass­ing her? →