Tag: sex discrimination

Women in Whistleblowing: The Intersection Between Women’s Rights and Federal Employee Whistleblower Protections

Introduction

Pew Research Center data found that 42% of women in the United States have suffered discrimination in the workplace on the basis of their gender. Although there are statutory frameworks in place prohibiting such discrimination, the threat of retaliation can make it exceedingly difficult for employees who are already experiencing discrimination and harassment to come forward as whistleblowers under these provisions. On top of the personal and professional risks inherent in whistleblowing, federal employee whistleblowers have been saddled with added burdens by the statutory framework: in addition to proving her substantive claims, a federal whistleblower of sex discrimination is required to demonstrate that she has exhausted certain administrative remedies before she can be heard by a jury of her peers.  Because workplace discrimination disproportionally affects women, ensuring expansive and effective whistleblower protections and remedies, particularly for women in federal employment, is undoubtedly a women’s rights issue. To celebrate Women’s History Month, this article highlights just a few of the remarkable women who have come forward as whistleblowers within this framework to make enormous strides in preserving, enforcing, and expanding crucial protections for future generations of women in the federal workplace.

Statutory Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“CRA”) prohibits discrimination by private employers based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and further prohibits retaliation by forbidding discrimination against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in” a Title VII proceeding or investigation. In 1972, the Equal Opportunity Act (“EOA”) expanded Title VII’s coverage to include certain categories of federal employees, providing that all personnel actions taken in regard to these employees “shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Many courts have interpreted the EOA to extend both the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions of the CRA to federal employees. However, in a report on whistleblowing conducted by Senator Patrick Leahy in 1978, it was noted that although some interpretations of the existing statutory framework had been generous to whistleblowers, many courts were still “reluctant to play a role in the whistleblower problem”

Thus, the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”) was passed in an attempt to cement protections for federal whistleblowers, creating an office within the Merit Protections Board (“MSPB”) to bring retaliation claims on behalf of whistleblowers. However, by 1989 not a single corrective action had been brought on behalf of whistleblowers to the MSPB, which was seen as largely ineffectual. In 1989, the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed, which for the first time created an individual right of action for federal employee whistleblowers. As the law currently stands, a federal employee whistleblower may bring a discrimination claim that would have been appealable to the MSPB as a civil action in federal court after the relevant administrative agency has failed to take action for a certain amount of time.

While this statutory framework provides critical tools for female whistleblowers to come forward and expose sex discrimination in the workplace, the accessibility of these tools remains particularly limited for federal employees who are required to go through the MSPB’s arduous administrative procedures before being heard in federal court, all the while often suffering continued discrimination and harassment at work. Thus, the real thrust of the work to protect female whistleblowers has been accomplished not by the provisions of the law but by those individual women brave enough to come forward and fight extensive legal battles to enforce, cement, and expand those provisions.

The Right to a Jury Trial for Federal Whistleblowers

Among the shortcomings of the statutory framework seeking to protect whistleblowers of sex discrimination in the federal workplace is an ambiguity in the scope of the individual right of action. The text of the statute explicitly gives the district court jurisdiction over discrimination claims arising under, inter alia, the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, it remains unclear whether a “mixed case”– which includes both discrimination claims and related non-discrimination retaliation claims – must remain within agency jurisdiction, or whether the entire mixed case, including the whistleblower retaliation claims, can be heard by a federal jury. This crucial gap in the legislation has been directly remedied by individual female whistleblowers.

In 1999, Dr. Duane Bonds was serving as Deputy Chief of the Sickle Cell Disease Branch of the Division of Blood Diseases and Resources within the NIH, where she was a highly prominent medical researcher. Throughout her employment, Dr. Bonds experienced repeated sexual harassment at the hands of her male supervisor. In retaliation for reporting the harassment to the EEOC, Dr. Bonds was removed from her position and demoted. In her new position, Dr. Bonds discovered that human DNA had been improperly used in NIH projects. She escalated these concerns over the objections of her supervisor, who retaliated by submitting negative performance reviews which caused her removal from the project. Dr. Bonds again filed a complaint with the EEOC in 2005, alleging that the removal constituted unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Throughout the complaint and investigation process, Dr. Bonds experienced continued sex discrimination and harassment in her workplace and was ultimately terminated in 2006. Dr. Bonds initiated a final EEOC complaint in 2007, detailing the extensive discrimination and whistleblower retaliation she had experienced. With no administrative action taken within the statutorily determined time frame, Bonds filed her case with the District Court.

Because it included both discrimination and claims of retaliation for protected whistleblowing activity, Bonds’ case was considered a “mixed case,” and the district court struggled with the question of jurisdiction under the CSRA, ultimately dismissing the claims citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In her appeal to the 4th Circuit, Dr. Bonds argued that mixed cases like hers must be treated as a single unit and heard in combination in either an administrative proceeding or in federal court. The 4th Circuit agreed, granting Bonds and other whistleblowers in her situation the right to a federal jury trial, on both her CSRA discrimination and WPA retaliation claims.

In determining this jurisdictional question, the 4th Circuit cited to a D.C. Circuit case which held in favor of another female whistleblower bringing both discrimination and retaliation claims. In this case, Kiki Ikossi – an electrical engineer at the Navy Research Lab – suffered continuous discrimination by her employer on the basis of age, gender, and national origin, stunting her career progression. Dr. Ikossi fought the misconduct in federal court, where the D.C. Circuit found that interpreting the law to require a whistleblower’s retaliation claims to be held up in administrative proceedings would be adverse to Congress’ intent to have discrimination and retaliation claims settled “expeditiously.” The Court noted that the regulatory structure surrounding mixed cases had become “extremely complicated,” and that access to a judicial forum for complainants of sexual discrimination in the federal workplace was critical to the legislative purpose, otherwise such claims would “languish undecided in the administrative machinery.”

The decisions on mixed case jurisdiction secured by Dr. Ikossi and Dr. Bonds have been cited by numerous other circuit courts, further expanding protections for federal employee whistleblowers facing sex discrimination in the workplace. On the basis of this precedent, Bunny Greenhouse – a high ranking official at the Army Corps of Engineers who discovered and exposed egregious contracting fraud by the Department of Defense – was able to take her case of whistleblower retaliation to federal court in the District of Columbia. Under pressure of a federal trial, the Army agreed to settle the case for nearly $1 million in restitution. After the settlement, Ms. Greenhouse made an impassioned statement: “I hope that the plight I suffered prompts the Administration and Congress to move dedicated civil servants from second-class citizenry and to finally give federal employees the legal rights that they need to protect the public trust.”

Among many other female whistleblowers who have helped to shape the law as it stands today, Dr. Ikossi, Dr. Bonds, and Ms. Greenhouse’s lengthy legal battles paved the way for future whistleblowers of gender discrimination to have their claims heard by a federal jury of peers rather than a politically appointed federal agency. The whistleblowing community is indebted to these women who were willing to take significant personal, professional, and financial risks to expose sex discrimination in the workplace, and to ensure future whistleblowers remain protected.

Copyright Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP 2023. All Rights Reserved.
For more White Collar Crime and Consumer Rights Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review

Equal Pay Act Claim Requires Show of Pay Disparity “Based on Sex” as Part of Prima Facie Case, Court Holds

Departing from other federal appeals courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that Equal Pay Act plaintiffs must establish that the pay differential between similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex” to make out a prima facie case.

In Gordon v. U.S., No. 17-1845 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018), two female emergency room physicians employed by a Veterans Administration hospital alleged they were underpaid compared to male emergency room physicians. Their pay discrimination claim related primarily to one male physician who was hired at the same time they were hired at the same pay rate in the same position, but he received a pay increase one year after they were hired that the female plaintiffs did not receive.

To state a claim of an EPA violation, an employee must show the employer:

  • Paid employees of opposite sexes different wages;

  • For substantially equal work;

  • In jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and

  • That are performed under similar working conditions.

If an employee provides evidence establishing each of these elements, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the pay disparity is justified under one of four affirmative defenses: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a pay system based on quantity or quality of output; or (4) any factor other than sex.

Here, the employer argued that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case and that, even if they had, the pay differential was justified under the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. The Court, which hears appeals involving federal employee EPA claims, held that the plaintiff doctors must meet an additional requirement to establish their prima facie EPA violation:

To make their prima facie case, however, [the doctors] must also establish that the pay differential between the similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex.”

Id. at 9-10. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not make this showing and that the employer was entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone. Notably, the Court held the employer had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. Id. at 10 n. 4.

The holding was based on a prior ruling, Yant v. United States, 588 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Judge Reyna wrote the panel decision, but also wrote separately to express the view that Yant should be overturned because the additional requirement improperly shifts the burden of proof in a manner inconsistent with the text of the EPA and Supreme Court precedent. Judge Reyna also notes that no other Circuit Court of Appeals requires this additional showing as part of the prima facie case. Id. at 17.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by F. Christopher Chrisbens of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Seventh Circuit Breaks New Ground: Sexual Orientation Discrimination Prohibited by Title VII

sex discrimination seventh circuitIn a landmark decision reflecting a potential turning of the tide for the LGBT community, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has become the first federal appeals court in the nation to hold that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, No. 3:14-cv-1791 (7th Cir. April 4, 2017).

Last July, a panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the sexual orientation discrimination claim of Kim Hively, a lesbian who claimed she was denied promotions and a full-time position due to her sexual orientation. (See Seventh Circuit: Title VII Offers No Protection Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination.) The Seventh Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc. Yesterday’s decision followed.

The Seventh Circuit began by observing that the question is not whether the court can, or should, add a new category of protection to Title VII, as that is beyond its authority.  Instead, the court viewed itself as charged with interpreting the existing language of Title VII, specifically, whether discrimination based on “sex” includes sexual orientation.

The court considered a number of interpretive aids. It cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s blessings on expansion of traditional sex discrimination claims in such cases as Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), which expanded the law to include sexual harassment, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), expanding the law to include same-sex harassment, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), expanding the law to include discrimination based on gender non-conformity, and Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584 (2015), upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Seventh Circuit noted that the Congress that enacted Title VII in 1964 may not have envisioned the necessity of these protections at the time, but nonetheless, experience has since caused the Supreme Court to recognize them as forms of prohibited sex discrimination.

The court also cited other Supreme Court decisions favoring sexual orientation-based protections, including Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), holding that a provision of the Colorado Constitution forbidding state government from taking action designed to protect “homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual” persons, violated the federal Equal Protection Clause; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), wherein a Texas statute criminalizing homosexual sex between consenting adults violated the federal Due Process Clause; and United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), striking down the Defense of Marriage Act’s exclusion of same-sex partners from the definition of “spouse.”

Ivy Tech argued that Congress has repeatedly considered—and refused—to add “sexual orientation” to the language of Title VII, and that should be interpreted as Congress’ intent to exclude it. This argument has been recited by numerous federal appellate courts in denying Title VII coverage to such claims. However, the Seventh Circuit noted that the legal landscape has changed over the years, and the Supreme Court has shed more light on the scope of the statute through its decisions, and for these reasons, the court was unable to draw any reliable inference from the failed “truncated legislative initiatives” in Congress.

As to the existence of the significant contrary authority, the court stated: “[T]his court sits en banc to consider what the correct rule of law is now in light of the Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretations, not what someone thought it meant one, ten, or twenty years ago.” The court reversed dismissal of Hively’s claim and remanded the case to the district court.

Inevitable Result, Uncertain Future

With the landslide of litigation in the courts seeking protections for the LGBT community, it may have been inevitable that one of the federal circuit courts hearing such a case would eventually rule in favor of Title VII protection from sexual orientation discrimination. Indeed, numerous recent decisions that have refused to recognize such protections have acknowledged the untenable results that have come to pass in so holding. The Seventh Circuit’s decision recognized: “It would require considerable calisthenics to remove the ‘sex’ from ‘sexual orientation.’ The effort to do so has led to confusing and contradictory results…”

Indeed, many courts in other jurisdictions continue to find creative ways to allow sexual orientation-based claims to proceed despite the legal roadblock, including most recently, the Second Circuit’s decision last week that allowed a gay advertising executive to proceed with his Title VII claims based on gender non-conformity as opposed to sexual orientation. Christiansen, et. al. v. Omincom Group, Inc., 2017 WL 1130183 (2nd Cir. March 27, 2017).

With yesterday’s ruling, the Seventh Circuit has created a split in the federal circuit courts, making this issue ripe for U.S. Supreme Court determination. The country likely will receive uniform interpretation of Title VII on this issue from the Supreme Court at some point. Until then, the law in this area is truly a mixed bag. Employees in the Seventh Circuit have an additional cause of action to bring under Title VII, and employers in this jurisdiction may see a rise in these claims in the near term. For most employers outside the Seventh Circuit, employees are barred from pursuing sexual orientation bias claims under Title VII.  However, alternate theories may be advanced, such as the plaintiff successfully did in the Second Circuit case. In addition, many state laws include sexual orientation protections.

While the law of the land is unsettled, one thing remains clear: employers that uphold principles of equal opportunity and fairness, and merit-based employment rewards, will fare the best.

ARTICLE BY Julie Furer Stahr of Schiff Hardin LLP

© 2017 Schiff Hardin LLP

Update Company Policies for Transgendered Employees

Although no federal statute explicitly prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has actively sought out opportunities to ensure coverage for transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions under its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016. After the EEOC issued its groundbreaking administrative ruling in Macy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, EEOC Appeal No. 012012081 (April 23, 2012), where it held that transgendered employees may state a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII, some courts have trended to support Title VII coverage for transgendered employees.

To address potential challenges and lawsuits that may arise, employers should consider updating codes of conduct as well as non-discrimination and harassment policies. While policies may differ based on an employer’s business, there are some key features to consider:

  • Include “gender identity” or “gender expression” in non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. Gender identity refers to the gender a person identifies with internally whereas gender expression refers to how an employee expresses their gender—i.e. how an employee dresses. The way an employee expresses their gender may not line up with how they identify their gender.

  • Establish gender transition guidelines and plans. A document should be established and available to all members of human resources and/or managers to eliminate mismanaging an employee who is transitioning. The guidelines may identify a specific contact for employees, the general procedure for updating personnel records, as well as restroom and/or locker room use.

  • Announcements. After management is informed, and with the employee’s permission, management should disseminate the employee’s new name to coworkers and everyone should begin using the correct name and pronoun of the employee. Misuse of a name or pronouns may create an unwelcome environment which could lead to a lawsuit.

  • Training and compliance. Employers should review harassment and diversity training programs and modules to ensure coverage of LGBTQ issues. All employees should be trained regarding appropriate workplace behavior and consequences for failing to comply with an organization’s rules.

In addition to the potential liability under federal law, some state laws provide a right of action for transgendered employees who are discriminated against at work; therefore, employers should review the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate to ensure compliance.

ARTICLE BY Latrice Nicole Lee of Polsinelli PC

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California