Tag: discrimination

Seventh Circuit: Title VII Offers No Protection Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination

sexual orientation discriminationIn the midst of a legal, political and cultural landscape expanding the rights of LGBT individuals, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has held to prior precedent in reaffirming that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, __ S.Ct. __, No. 15-720 (July 28, 2016).  According to the court, though “the writing is on the wall” that sexual orientation discrimination should not be tolerated, because the writing is not in a Supreme Court opinion or Title VII, the court’s hands are tied.

In two 2000 opinions, Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. & Health Care Ctr., Inc.and Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., the Seventh Circuit had previously held that Title VII offers no protection from sexual orientation discrimination. The court revisited the issue now in order to provide a more detailed analysis in light of recent trends and decisions advancing LGBT rights.

The court recognized the merits of many of Ms. Hively’s arguments, and acknowledged that in light of the recognition of other rights of LGBT individuals the current legal landscape does not make sense. In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unlawful (U.S. v. Windsor) and legalized gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). In 2015, the EEOC held that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Baldwin v. Foxx (July 16, 2015). Many judicial decisions at the district court level have repeatedly recognized that sexual orientation discrimination cannot be tolerated. Yet, Congress has repeatedly rejected new legislation that would extend Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination, and it has not amended the language of Title VII to include sexual orientation.

This creates “a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.” The court observed, “From an employee’s perspective, the right to marriage might not feel like a real right if she can be fired for exercising it.”

Nonetheless, the court stated that Congress’ failure to amend Title VII to include sexual orientation cannot be due to its unawareness of the issue. Thus, Congress must have intended a very narrow reading of the term “sex” when it passed Title VII.

In excluding sexual orientation discrimination from the coverage of Title VII, the Seventh Circuit conveyed its apparent reluctance in doing so:

“Perhaps the writing is on the wall. It seems unlikely that  our  society  can  continue  to  condone  a  legal  structure  in  which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled  out  for  undesirable  tasks,  paid  lower  wages,  demoted,  passed  over  for  promotions,  and  otherwise  discriminated  against solely based on who they date, love, or marry. The agency tasked with enforcing Title VII does not condone it, … many of the federal  courts to consider the matter have stated that they do not  condone it …; and this court undoubtedly  does not condone it… . But writing  on the wall is not enough. Until the writing comes in the  form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we  must adhere to the writing of our prior precedent[.]”

The Seventh Circuit went on to offer its further observations:

“Many citizens would be surprised to learn that under federal law any private employer can summon an employee into his office and state, “You are a hard‐working employee and have added much value to my company, but I am firing you because you are gay.” And the employee would have no recourse whatsoever—unless she happens to live in a state or locality with an anti‐discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation.”

Those states are currently California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Other states apply the prohibition to public employment only: Alaska, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio; Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Some local city and county ordinances contain similar anti-discrimination provisions.

The bottom line for both employers and LGBT individuals, in the Seventh Circuit and elsewhere, is that the employment protections afforded to individuals based on sexual orientation remains determined, for now, at the state and local level.

ARTICLE BY Julie Furer Stahr of Schiff Hardin LLP

© 2016 Schiff Hardin LLP

Are Your Anti-Harassment Initiatives Working? EEOC Says NO

It has been thirty years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workplace harassment was a form of discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a series of court and agency decisions since that time, we have been provided some guidance on what the courts and the EEOC expect employers to do in order to protect their employees from unlawful harassment, but never has the guidance been more clear than in a report the EEOC released in June.

Zero Tolerance, EEOC, harassmentThe report is the result of an EEOC task force charged with examining workplace harassment and methods for preventing and addressing it. The report is clear – it’s time for a reboot of workplace harassment prevention and compliance initiatives. The report is rich with statistics and examples, and worth a read for the list of 12 harassment risk factors and recommendations. Pay particular attention to the section on training. The report unequivocally states: training should be conducted by qualified, live, and interactive trainers. In addition, the EEOC advises what we have long believed to be the case: in order to be effective, anti-harassment training should be delivered “live” with the top level of leadership present and participating.

So, we encourage you to take pause and inventory your anti-harassment initiatives. Is your current program effective and are your training dollars well-spent?

You can find a copy of the EEOC’s report here.

ARTICLE BY Christine McLaughlin of Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

Copyright © 2016 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

California DFEH Announces Guidance to Employers Regarding Transgender Rights in the Workplace

Individuals who identify as transgender are protected under California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (Cal. Govt. Code §12940)(“FEHA”).  FEHA protection was extended in 2012 to include gender identity and gender expression categories, and defines “gender expression” to mean a “person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”  Transgender worker rights have received increased attention in recent months as employers attempt to put into place compliant procedures that are sensitive to transgender workers.

On February 17, 2016, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued guidelines on transgender rights in the workplace.  As this cutting edge area of law continues to develop, employers would be wise to follow the DFEH common sense recommendations which are summarized below:

Do Not Ask Discriminatory Questions

Finding the right employee can be a challenge for employers.   Interviews of prospective candidates can provide helpful insight as to whether the particular candidate is right for the position.  Employers may ask about an employee’s employment history, and may still ask for personal references and other non-discriminatory questions of prospective employees.  However, an employer should not ask questions designed to detect a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  The following questions have been identified by the DFEH as off-limits:

  • Do not ask about marital status, spouse’s name or relation of household members to one another; and

  • Do not ask questions about a person’s body or whether they plan to have surgery because the information is generally prohibited by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Apply Dress Codes and Grooming Standards Equally

The DFEH reminds employers that California law explicitly prohibits an employer from denying an employee the right to dress in a manner suitable for that employee’s gender identity.  Any employer who requires a dress code must enforce it in a non-discriminatory manner.  For example, a transgender man must be allowed to dress in the same manner as a non-transgender man.  Additionally, transgender persons should be treated equally as are non-transgender persons.

Employee Locker Rooms/Restrooms

According to the DFEH, employees in California have the right to use a restroom or locker room that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity, regardless of the employee’s assigned sex at birth.  Where possible, employers should provide an easily accessible unisex single stall bathroom for use by any employee who desires increased privacy.  This can be used by a transgender employee or a non-transgender employee who does not want to share a restroom or locker room with a transgender co-worker.

Summary

It is important to note that FEHA protects transgender employees and those employees who may not be transgender, but may not comport with traditional or stereotypical gender roles.

The DFEH’s guidance reminds California employers that a transgender person does not need to have sex reassignment surgery, or complete any particular step in a gender transition to be protected by the law.  An employer may not condition its treatment or accommodation of a transitioning employee on completion of a particular step in the transition.

Ultimately, while not the binding authority, the DFEH’s message is clear—employers should avoid discriminatory conduct, apply procedures consistently, and follow transgender employee’s lead with respect to their gender identity and expression.  The DFEH guidelines are consistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s interpretation that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Article By Anne Cherry Barnett of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

Hillshire Brands Company Pays $4 Million to Settle Race Discrimination Suit

EEOCSealAfrican American Bakery Workers Subjected to Racist Comments and Graffiti in the Worksite, Federal Agency Charged

DALLAS – Hillshire Brands Company (formerly known as the Sara Lee Corporation) will pay $4 million to a group of 74 African-American former employees and provide other significant relief to settle a lawsuit where they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment at a former Sara Lee facility in Paris, Texas, the agency announced today.

EEOC claimed African-American employees were subjected to racist graffiti on the walls of the bathrooms and locker room. The former bakery employees also alleged that during work hours, they were berated with racial slurs by supervisors and other white co-workers, and complaints by the plant workers went unaddressed by management.

Race discrimination in the workplace, including race harassment, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 2:15-cv-1347) in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

“The Commission completed an extensive investigation at the Sara Lee plant, which included conducting interviews with the former bakery workers,” said Meaghan L. Shepard, trial attorney for the Dallas District of EEOC. “EEOC determined racial slurs and graffiti continued at the facility in Paris for years, until the doors finally closed in November 2011.”

“EEOC strongly believes it is critically important for companies to set policies and provide effective avenues for complaints to address racial harassment in the workplace,” said EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Suzanne Anderson. “African-American workers on the Sara Lee bakery production lines in Paris felt embarrassed and intimidated by the graffiti in the bathroom and the racial slurs on the production floor. Strong corporate policies and quick remedial action protects against this type of workplace discrimination.”

The two-year consent decree settling the case provides for an injunction where Hillshire Brands will implement various preventative approaches regarding discrimination or harassment against any employee on the basis of race and will periodically report incidents or investigations to EEOC. Hillshire Brands also agreed to engage in remedial measures such as anti-discrimination training and implementation of procedures to prevent and promptly address graffiti issues.

Belinda McCallister, acting director of EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We are pleased with the approach taken by the employer to acknowledge the hostile environment that once existed and for taking positive steps toward ensuring a healthy workplace in the future.”

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

See original news release here: http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-22-15.cfm

© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EEOC’S Lawsuit Against Costco to Proceed

Costco smallA federal district court judge ruled that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) claim that Costco violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to prevent a male customer from stalking and harassing a female employee at the company’s Glenview, Ill. warehouse will be decided by a jury.

Judge Ruben Castillo, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, denied Costco’s motion for summary judgment on EEOC’s claim it failed to protect one of its former employees from a sexually hostile work environment. The decision in EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 14-cv-6553, was entered on Dec. 16, 2015. The court announced it will select a jury trial date at a status hearing in January.

The court said it found evidence the employee was subjected to harassing behavior by a customer for more than a year, including ominous staring, unwanted physical touching, unwanted requests for dates and overly intrusive personal questions. The court found evidence the customer interactions continued to escalate, even though he had been talked to by Costco’s managers and the Glenview police to avoid her. The court also concluded that, added together and given the length of time over which the incidents occurred, they amounted to a level of a hostile work environment.

The court also found evidence Costco failed to take reasonable steps to stop the harassment, noting that Costco waited more than a year to ban the customer from the store. The court granted summary judgment for Costco on EEOC’s constructive discharge claim.

Costco is an international membership warehouse retailer which, according to its website, has over 650 locations worldwide, annual revenues over $100 billion, and over 125,000 employees in the United States.

EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and North and South Dakota, with area offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. This information was previously published on the EEOC website, www.eeoc.gov.

Article By U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EMPLOYERS: The #ElderlyChristmasSongs Hashtag Is Trending On Twitter

We have posted numerous blogs discussing the need for employers to stay on top of what is trending on the Internet. Why? Because trending topics can sometimes lead to controversial discussions that might not be consistent with an employer’s EEO Policy. As a result, we explained that it would be prudent to understand what may be the current topic being discussed around the watercooler.

Here is a follow up to those posts. The #ElderlyChristmasSongs hashtag is currently trending on Twitter. What is the relevance of this topic to employers? A quick search shows that a lot of the content posted can be construed as inappropriate and/or discriminatory (although presumably meant to be humorous).  It’s the middle of the work day where we are – so we can only presume a lot of this content is being posted by employees in the workplace.

Remember: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act and many state laws prohibit discrimination based on age.  The more questionable content generated in the workplace, the better chance an employee can argue there is evidence of a convincing mosaic of discrimination tolerated by the employer. Be sure to remind employees of your company’s EEO policy if you come across any inappropriate content and/or discussions. And, as always, be sure to stay on top of trends that may have an impact in the workplace.

Article By Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP
© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Arkansas Cities and Counties Provide Local LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections

A new civil rights law affording nondiscrimination protections for most lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender residents of Fayetteville, Arkansas, will go into effect on November 7, 2015.

Passed by the City Council and ratified by a popular vote in a Special Election held on September 8, 2015, the Uniform Civil Rights Protection ordinance (Ordinance 5781) prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations, based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. Declaring that “[t]he right of an otherwise qualified person to be free from discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity is the same right of every citizen to be free from discrimination because of race, religion, national origin, gender and disability as recognized and protected by the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993,” the Ordinance also protects anyone who opposes any act prohibited by the Ordinance or who participates in such an investigation.

Designed to overcome objections to a similar measure that was repealed in 2014, Ordinance 5781 exempts from its coverage any employer with fewer than nine employees, as well as any church, religious school or day school, and any other religious organization. It also includes an enforcement scheme that is conciliatory, rather than punitive, with civil fines imposed for violations.

Civil Rights Commission

Enforcement will be handled by a newly formed, seven-member Civil Rights Commission appointed by the City Council and comprised of representatives of the business community, owners or managers of rental property, and citizens at large (at least one of whom identifies as LGBT), as well as at least one person with experience in human resources or employment law.

Anyone claiming a violation of the ordinance must present that claim in writing to the Fayetteville City Attorney within 90 days of the alleged violation. The City Attorney must then forward the complaint to the Commission.

Resolution of any complaint will begin with informal and confidential mediation between the parties. If such attempts are unsuccessful, the claim will ultimately go to an evidentiary hearing before the Commission. Anyone found to have violated the Ordinance will be fined up to $100 for the first offense, with subsequent violations carrying the City’s general penalty of fines up to $500 and up to 30 days in jail if fines are not paid. However, there is no criminal classification or penalty associated with the Ordinance or its violation.

Opposition

The Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, though a leading opponent of the measure repealed in 2014, is in full support of this one. The story may not end there, however.

Opponents of the law filed suit in August 2015, seeking to stop the Special Election and arguing that the measure infringes upon individuals’ and business owners’ freedom of religion, that sexual predators might use the law to prey upon women and children in public restrooms, and that the ballot had a misleading title that did not include any details about LGBT protections, among other things. Injunctive relief was denied, but the lawsuit is pending in Washington County Circuit Court. Further, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge released an opinion on September 1, 2015, stating that Ordinance 5781, as well as any similar measure passed by other municipalities, conflicts with Arkansas state law, and therefore, should not survive legal challenge. She relies upon the state’s recently enacted Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act, which bans cities and counties from enacting or enforcing “an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that creates a protected classification or prohibits discrimination on a basis not contained in state law.”

On the other hand, Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams has stated that he will defend the Ordinance. He said the Ordinance incorporates several existing state laws, including the Arkansas Anti-Bullying Act and the Fair Housing Act, which, by their very terms, provide LGBT protections. “The protected classifications are certainly there in state law, and, therefore, this is not a new protected classification,” said Williams. He also has questioned whether the Intrastate Commerce Improvement Act is constitutional under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

The new Ordinance is a part of a growing national trend to prevent employers, at the local level, from firing or declining to hire any person because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. Similar measures have been enacted by Pulaski County and five other cities in Arkansas: Little Rock, North Little Rock, Hot Springs, Eureka Springs, and Conway.

Article By James R. Mulroy, II & Jennifer C. Kellett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Rules That Sexual Orientation Discrimination Violates Title VII Of The 1964 Civil Rights Act

In a potentially groundbreaking decision that increases legal protections throughout the U.S. for lesbian, gay and bisexual employees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled on June 15, 2015, that existing civil rights law bars sexual orientation-based employment discrimination.  The EEOC addressed the question of whether the ban on sex discrimination in Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“The Civil Rights Act”) bars anti-LGB discrimination in a charge brought by a Florida employee.

EEOC Employment discrimination LGB discrimination sexual orientation

The ruling was issued without objection from any members of the five-person commission, and while it technically only applies directly to federal employees’ claims, the EEOC also applies such rulings across the nation when it investigates claims of discrimination in private employment.  Although only the Supreme Court can issue a final, definitive ruling on the interpretation of The Civil Rights Act, EEOC decisions are given significant deference by federal courts.

Although the EEOC had been moving in this general direction with cases and field guidance addressing specific types of discrimination faced by gay people, the July 15 decision unequivocally states that sexual orientation is inherently an unlawful “sex-based consideration,” reasoning that sexual orientation discrimination “necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex” and constitutes “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.”  In making this ruling, the EEOC joins approximately 22 states that provide sexual orientation discrimination protections in employment.

Given that this EEOC decision is entitled to deference by federal courts, employers across the U.S. should anticipate that practices that could be construed as discriminatory on the basis of a worker’s sexual orientation will be challenged in federal court and subject the employer to potential liability.

For EEOC guidance on this issue, click the following link: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_lgbt_workers.cfm

ARTICLE BY Gary M. Gansle of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Disability Discrimination And Harassment: Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to Disabled Cancer Survivor

Agency Says Retailer Denied Accommodations to and Harassed a Disabled Cancer Survivor

CHICAGO – Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. violated federal law by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee at its Hodgkins, Ill., store who was disabled by bone cancer and failing to stop harassment of the employee, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed yesterday.

According to Julianne Bowman, the EEOC’s district director in Chicago, who managed EEOC’s pre-suit administrative investigation, the Walmart store initially agreed to comply with employee Nancy Stack’s request that the company provide a chair in her work area in the fitting room and limit her scheduled work hours because treatment for bone cancer in her leg limited her ability to walk and stand. After complying with her scheduling accommodation for many months, the store revoked it for no reason. And the store did not ensure that a chair was in Stack’s work area, at one point telling her that she had to haul a chair from the furniture department every day, which was of course hard for her to do given her disability. Finally, the store transferred Stack from the fitting room to a greeter position, which did not comply with her restrictions on standing.

To add insult to injury, Bowman added, a co-worker harassed Stack by calling her names like “cripple” and “chemo brain,” imitated her limp, and removed or hid the chair the employee needed in her work area. Stack complained repeatedly, but the store took no action to stop the co-worker’s harassment.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, which can include denying reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and subjecting disabled employees to a hostile work environment.

The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The case, EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-5796, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and was assigned to U.S. District Judge Sharon Coleman. The government’s litigation effort will be led by Trial Attorney Ann Henry and supervised by EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney Diane Smason.

“It’s hard to believe a retailer the size of Wal-Mart could not manage to consistently provide such a simple accommodation as a chair,” said John Hendrickson, the regional attorney for EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Telling a disabled employee that she needs to drag a chair across the store every day is no accommodation at all. Employers have to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would be an undue hardship. EEOC is aware of no hardship that required Wal-Mart to suddenly change Stack’s schedule, deny her the use of a chair, and transfer her out of the fitting room where she had performed her job well for years.”

EEOC Trial Attorney Ann Henry commented, “No employee should have to go to work and face mocking and name calling because she had cancer. Employers who know about such vile harassment in their workplace have an obligation to stop it. Wal-Mart did not do that here, and the EEOC will seek to hold the company liable for that violation.

In July 2014, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart alleging that it violated the ADA by firing an intellectually disabled employee at a Rockford Walmart store after it rescinded his workplace accommodation.

The EEOC’s Chicago District Office is responsible for processing discrimination charges, administrative enforcement and the conduct of agency litigation in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and North and South Dakota, with Area Offices in Milwaukee and Minneapolis.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.

This press release originally appeared in the EEOC Newsroom. 

ARTICLE BY U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
© Copyright U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oklahoma Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment to Employer on Professor’s Allegations He Was Denied Tenure After Reporting Inappropriate Facebook Posts by Fellow Professors

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

A federal court in Oklahoma recently denied summary judgment to Northeastern State University, finding that a professor’s discrimination and retaliation claims, among others, could proceed to trial. The professor, Dr. Leslie Hannah, was appointed chair of his department in 2009. The previous assistant chair, Dr. Brian Cowlishaw, was ineligible for the chair position pursuant to the University’s nepotism policy (his wife, Dr. Bridget Cowlishaw, was a professor in the department). During that period, Dr. Brian Cowlishaw posted the following comment on his Facebook page:

“Brian Hammer Cowlishaw /salutes in NSU’s direction / Good luck with that, then! [translation: I won’t be entering the ‘election’ for department chair, because what I offer, no one wants] Good luck! / salute!”

Then in response to a comment, he wrote:

“There will be an ‘election’ the first week of February. They’re making a f*****g indian chair.”

In 2010, Drs. Brian and Bridget Cowlishaw, and another professor, Dr. Donna Shelton, made disparaging comments on Facebook after Dr. Hannah scheduled a department meeting to be held outdoors by the river. In response to a post by Dr. Bridget Cowlishaw about not looking forward to the beginning of the academic year, Dr. Shelton wrote:

“Wonder if they sell body armor for use under regalia…”

In response to a post by Dr. Brian Cowlishaw about the camping trip, Dr. Bridget Cowlishaw wrote:

“Nah, our chair will bring all the handbaskets we need. He’s probably woven them himself.”

In response to a post about whether anyone attended, Dr. Bridget Cowlishaw wrote:

“Maybe they were all eaten by wolves.”

Dr. Hannah reported the posts to the University. The University found that the posts were inappropriate, and reprimanded the professors. Dr. Bridget Cowlishaw entered into a settlement agreement with the University whereby she resigned.

In 2011, Dr. Hannah reported to Human Resources: “I think the time has come for me to leave NSU. This seems to be an unsafe place for American Indians. I will be submitting my resignation . . . ” He then did not resign his position, but he did resign as department chair.

Dr. Hannah ultimately submitted his application for tenure and early promotion when he became eligible in late 2012. The committee that reviewed his application consisted of seven people, including Dr. Brian Cowlishaw and Dr. Shelton. The vote regarding Dr. Hannah was split 3/3 with one abstention, with Dr. Brian Cowlishaw and Dr. Shelton voting to deny the application. Thereafter, in early 2013, the University’s Dean reviewed the committee’s findings and denied Dr. Hannah’s application, stating that Dr. Hannah had “polarized the Department and displayed hostility toward other faculty and staff.” The Dean later stated that, while he was aware of past conflicts in the department, he was unaware of the inappropriate Facebook posts. Dr. Hannah filed a complaint with the University, and the University placed Dr. Hannah on administrative leave with pay for the remainder of his contract.

Dr. Hannah filed suit, including for discrimination and retaliation. The University brought a summary judgment motion. With respect to the discrimination and retaliation claims, the University’s main argument was that there was no causal connection between the Facebook posts in 2009 and 2010 and the denial of Dr. Hannah’s tenure in 2013.

The court was unconvinced that the passage of time between the Facebook posts and the denial of tenure defeated causation, stating: “Two years is not a significant amount of time. It is more than plausible and rather likely that after two years, Dr. Cowlishaw and Dr. Shelton still held some animosity toward Dr. Hannah for his reporting their Facebook posts, which resulted in their reprimands and possibly in the resignation of Dr. Cowlishaw’s wife.”

The Hannah case is another reminder for employers regarding the importance of implementing a good social media policy and training all employees to abide by it. Training employees not to make inappropriate posts in the first place trumps effective corrective action once the employer becomes aware of such posts. Although inHannah, the University’s initial response to the inappropriate posts was sufficient, the fact that the professors had made the posts in the first place played a key role in precluding the University from prevailing on summary judgment during later litigation.

ARTICLE BY

Alexander Nestor
Nisha Verma
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP