We constantly hear about cases where employers are found to be in violation of federal regulations and are summarily fined and, often, successfully sued. Today, we’ll look at when claims against employers don’t hold up in court and what you can learn from them.
 |
Even when a company does its best to avoid legal issues, employees can still be litigious. Unfortunately for the employer, that often means an expensive trip to court. Any legal entanglement will cost an employer, but a win at least helps the business avoid the cost of a substantial (and reputation damaging) judgment. Today, we are going to look at a few recent examples where companies did their due diligence and were vindicated in court.
Take the Probable out of Probable Cause with Due Diligence
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which cover employers with 15 or more employees, protect employees with disabilities from discrimination, unlawful firing, and retaliation for filing claims. Sometimes poor treatment of such workers might justify litigation, but as we’ll see, sometimes those workers are not being as poorly treated as they claim. Harold Nyanjom, an employee at Hawker Beechcraft in Kansas, claimed he was discriminated against because of his disability and was denied reasonable accommodation.
Minimizing retaliation claims is crucial for your peace of mind. Start on Thursday, October 1, 2015, with a new interactive webinar—Retaliation Claim Prevention: HR’s Training and Intervention Keys to Avoiding EEOC Attention. Learn More
As it turns out, Nyanjom’s proposed accommodations were not that reasonable. Nyanjom has been virtually blind in his left eye since birth. He worked at Beechcraft for many years as a sheet metal assembler. His disability did not affect his ability to hear, speak, breathe, learn, stand, sit, bend, communicate, reach, think, or concentrate. After moving from position to position at the company, Nyanjom requested accommodations for his disability. He requested that Beechcraft:
- Redesign all of the overhead lighting in the plant where he worked;
- Provide large-print blueprint conversions and step-by-step assembly books for all parts;
- Provide a trainer to oversee his work; and
- Provide an outside occupational therapist to evaluate his work area.
Hawker Beechcraft responded to Nyanjom’s requests by providing freestanding lamps, large-print blueprints, and an experienced assembler to work as his partner. The company refused to provide an outside occupational therapist because of U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) security requirements specific to his work area, but it did have its own ergonomist complete an evaluation.
When Nyanjom cried discrimination in 2011, two things happened. First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided that there was probable cause to go to court over Nyanjom’s claim. Second, the court noted that redesigning all of the overhead lighting would have caused the company an undue hardship due to extreme cost, and hiring an external occupational therapist was unreasonable when Beechcraft had an ergonomist on staff.
The takeaway. By carefully evaluating its resources, considering Nyanjom’s accommodation requests, and proposing alternative accommodations, the company satisfied its accommodation obligations under the ADA and stayed out of hot water. Beechcraft’s due diligence and recordkeeping protected them from the claim.
Sex Discrimination Not Always the Problem
Of course, when sex discrimination actually occurs, the victim of that discrimination has every right to collect on his or her claim. Unfortunately, sometimes an employee will use the claim of discrimination to try to get what he or she wants. Delyorce Rebouche, a technician at John Deere Company in Iowa, was found by a court to be one such employee. Between 1977 and 2010, Rebouche rose from pay Grade 4 to Grade 9, climbing up a grade about every 3 years. She received nearly all positive performance reviews.
The problem, as Rebouche saw it, involved two different times. In 2004, she received a performance rating of “Exceeds Expectations” and a year later “Fully Meets Expectations.” She never complained about her performance reviews even though she thought they weren’t as high as she deserved.
Also, in 1999, Rebouche asked to be elevated to a Grade 8 pay level; her request was denied. She was told that she had to be in a supervisory position to receive Grade 8 pay. Subsequently, she noted that a male colleague received Grade 8 pay despite not having any employees under his supervision. She claimed that none of the women in her department was given a pay grade increase at the time that several of the men were elevated in pay grade. As a result, she filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex and age discrimination.
Want to protect yourself from retaliation claims? Join us Thursday, October 1, 2015, for a new interactive webinar, Retaliation Claim Prevention: HR’s Training and Intervention Keys to Avoiding EEOC Attention. Earn 1.5 hours in HRCI Recertification Credit and 1.5 hours in SHRM Professional Development Credit. Register Now
In 2012, Rebouche filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She brought up her less than perfect performance review in 2005 and the failure to be elevated to Grade 8 in 1999 (even though she eventually was elevated beyond even pay Grade 8.) She also claimed that she suffered adverse employment action as a result of her complaint to the EEOC.
The courts found her to be a member of a protected class. If she could prove that she wasn’t promoted despite meeting her employer’s expectations, she would be found to be the recipient of an adverse employment action. In order to prove this, the courts asked her to provide a comparator as is common in such cases. In other words, the EEOC needed an example of a male who held the same position but was advanced more quickly and with better performance reviews.
Ultimately, Rebouche was unable to supply evidence of a comparator, and therefore failed to prove that she was the recipient of adverse employment action. As for her claims of retaliation, there was nothing in the record to show that her supervisor even knew that she had filed an EEOC complaint let alone retaliated against her. Finally, her performance reviews were found to be consistently positive throughout the period in question.
The takeaway. Rebouche could have had the makings of a good discrimination and retaliation case had she presented more evidence. She may have felt discriminated and retaliated against, but there was no proof that Deere made its pay decisions on a discriminatory basis or retaliated against her.
In fact, she was given consistently positive performance reviews that resulted in promotions over two levels of pay. Deere did everything right, and the court agreed in 2012. Again, the employer was at an advantage because it was consistent in its application of pay raises and performance reviews and because it did not retaliate against its employee for making a complaint.
Tomorrow, we’ll explore another case where a company used due diligence and proper documentation to avoid an expensive claim, plus an introduction to interactive webinar, Retaliation Claim Prevention: HR’s Training and Intervention Keys to Avoiding EEOC Attention.