The U.S. Supreme Court recently released a double feature for employers, publishing two decisions with significant workplace implications. Read on to learn about what these cases mean to you.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Acts Of Bias From Long Ago May Count Against You
Abner Morgan, an African-American, claimed that he endured isolated incidents of racial bias and retaliation while he worked for Amtrak. He also alleged that he experienced a racially hostile work environment throughout his five years there. He filed suit under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, and his case eventually made its way to the nation’s high court. Under Title VII, employees generally have to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of when the alleged illegal employment practice occurred. Employees are out of luck if they miss this deadline for isolated retaliatory or discriminatory acts—such as failure to promote. A separate clock ticks for each act.
However, the court said hostile environment claims are different from isolated acts of bias. A hostile work environment amounts to a single unlawful employment practice made up of many separate incidents. An employee only has to file a charge before the clock runs out on the last act that is part of the hostile work environment. So you could have to defend your handling of incidents that happened many years—if not decades—ago.What does this mean for your record-keeping policies? It’s too soon to know the full implications, but if an employee makes multiple claims of discrimination or harassment, you might want to keep your investigation files about them for the indefinite future, or at least until the court provides more guidance. Evidence that an old complaint was properly investigated and resolved may become newly important if the complaining employee later files a hostile work environment claim. Note that the court may change its mind on this in the future. Four of the nine justices disagreed with this part of the decision. We’ll keep you posted on any developments.
You Don’t Have To Hire Individuals Whose Disabilities Would Endanger Them On The Job
The good news relates to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In this case, the justices unanimously agreed that you may refuse to hire disabled individuals if the work would endanger their health. Mario Echazabal twice applied for a job with Chevron, which both times offered him a job on the condition that he pass the company’s physical exam. Each time, the exam showed liver damage caused by hepatitis C, which Chevron’s doctors said would be aggravated by continued exposure to toxins at Chevron’s refinery. Chevron therefore withdrew its employment offers. Echazabal claimed Chevron violated the ADA in refusing to hire him. Chevron, on the other hand, relied on an EEOC regulation that authorizes an employer to refuse to hire a disabled individual if there is proof that performing the job would endanger the person’s health.The Supreme Court upheld the regulation. The court said Chevron’s reasons for relying on the regulation were unsurprising: “moral concerns aside, it wishes to avoid time lost to sickness, excessive turnover from medical retirement or death, litigation under state tort law, and the risk of violating [OSHA].” Keep in mind that you need very clear evidence that a job would harm a disabled employee’s health before you can refuse to hire the person. If you turn down a candidate based on mere assumptions, you might violate the ADA. In the Chevron case, medical testimony established the heightened risks of the job for a person with liver damage. Always seek professional advice in such cases and be certain of the facts before you proceed.