Tag Archive for: discrimination

Fifth Circuit eliminates the Ultimate Employment Decision requirement in Title VII discrimination cases

In a case entitled Hamilton v. Dallas County, the Fifth Circuit eliminated the “ultimate employment decision” requirement in Title VII discrimination cases. The case is significant because the requirement for an employer to have taken an actual adverse employment action, in other words to have made some some “ultimate employment decision” that affected the plaintiff’s employment, has been a threshold requirement that allowed judges to review whether a case warranted litigation. Whether judges should even be doing so has itself been an on-going policy debate.

By eliminating this threshold, the Fifth Circuit may have put itself at odds with a number of other courts creating a split that may well rise to the Supreme Court.

The actual impact of this decision — if it withstands Supreme Court review — is arguable since even the Fifth Circuit still requires the plaintiff to prove the discrimination impacted their “hiring, firing, compensation, or other ‘terms, conditions or privileges’ of her employment.” indeed the Fofth Corcuit characterizes its own decision as simply simplifying its own test to bring it in line with other Circuits, which focus on whether there has been a showing of an impact to hiring, firing, etc. In other words, the decision may be more about the semantics of how the Fifth Circuit phrases its test rather than any substantive split.

/0 Comments/by

Colorado employers, brace for 2023 state legislative developments

The Colorado state legislature enacted a crop of new laws affecting employers in 2023, including the following:

  • The POWR Act (Protecting Opportunities and Workers’ Rights Act)
  • Revisions to existing job/promotional opportunity posting and disclosure requirements
  • Expansion of reasons for taking HFWA/paid sick leave
  • Age-related questions in job applications
  • Penalties related to wrongful refusals to allow use of service animals by disabled individuals
  • State actions to recover reimbursement of overdue wage payments
  • Expansion of military leave.

The remainder of this blog post summarizes some of the features of these new developments.

  • POWR Act (Protecting Opportunities and Workers’ Rights Act) will take effect August 7, 2023: The Colorado legislature summarized this wide-ranging law, as follows:
  • Directs the Colorado civil rights division (division) to include “harassment” as a basis or description of discrimination on any charge form or charge intake mechanism;
  • Adds a new definition of “harass” or “harassment” and repeals the current definition of “harass” that requires creation of a hostile work environment;
  • Adds protections from discriminatory or unfair employment practices for individuals based on their “marital status”;
  • Specifies that in harassment claims, the alleged conduct need not be severe or pervasive to constitute a discriminatory or unfair employment practice;
  • For purposes of the exception to otherwise discriminatory practices for an employer that is unable to accommodate an individual with a disability who is otherwise qualified for the job, eliminates the ability for the employer to assert that the individual’s disability has a significant impact on the job as a rationale for the employment practice;
  • Specifies the requirements for an employer to assert an affirmative defense to an employee’s proven claim of unlawful harassment by a supervisor; and
  • Specifies the requirements that must be satisfied for a nondisclosure provision in an agreement between an employer and an employee or a prospective employee to be enforceable; and
  • Requires an employer to maintain personnel and employment records for at least 5 years and, with regard to complaints of discriminatory or unfair employment practices, to maintain those records in a designated repository.

When reviewing the legislature’s summary of its new POWR Act, Colorado employers may wish to note the following fleshouts on some of those points:

  • In revising the definition of prohibited “harassment,” the legislature has deleted the longstanding threshold requirement that harassment be “severe or pervasive.” In doing so the legislature noted that some threshold still needed to be met, in that “petty slights, minor annoyances, and lack of good manners” will generally not suffice. Future litigation will need to analyze how this new standard requiring more than “petty slights, minor annoyance, and lack of good manners” is different than the longstanding “severe or pervasive” standard. Further complicating future litigation will be the legislature’s observation in the POWR Act that this new standard will, like the prior standard, require an analysis of “the totality of the circumstances.”
  • Additionally, in revising the definition of “harassment,” the legislature has revised the longstanding Ellerth-Faragher defense, in cases of prohibited harassment by supervisors, for employers who train against and take prompt and effective remedial steps to eliminate prohibited harassment. Now, Colorado law will require an employer, when sued for sexual harassment by a supervisor, in order to qualify for this affirmative defense, to prove that they had a “program” in place that is “reasonably designed” to “prevent” unlawful harassment and to “deter” unlawful harassment and to protect” employees from unlawful harassment, additionally, that they actually do take “prompt, reasonable action to investigate or address” complaints and incidents, and further that they actually do take “prompt, reasonable remedial actions, when warranted,” and also that they have “communicated the existence and details of the program.”
  • Marital status itself will be a protected class.
    • The POWR Act does not define whether “marital status” means the status of being married, or whether it would include the status of being not married, being in a partnership relationship, being in a dating relationship, etc.
  • The changes that apply to a “nondisclosure provision” are multi-faceted and warrant immediate review of any agreement that includes confidentiality language, whether an employment agreement, an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), a non-compete or non-solicit, etc., if “entered into or renewed on or after” August 7, 2023.
    • While employers will still be able to require confidentiality language that protects trade secrets, any “nondisclosure provision” will be void if it goes farther than that and “limits the ability of the employee or prospective employee to disclose, either orally or in writing, any alleged discriminatory or unfair employment practice.”
    • The legislature provided one exception for “nondisclosure provisions” that:
      • Applies “equally to all parties to the agreement,” apparently in other words, meaning confidentiality may be required if there is mutuality as to “all parties to the agreement,”
      • Expressly states
        • that it does not restrain the employee or prospective employee from disclosing
          • the underlying facts of any alleged discriminatory or unfair employment practice,” apparently, to anyone,
          • “the existence and terms of a settlement agreement” to
            • “the employee’s or prospective employee’s immediate family members, religious advisor, medical or mental health provider, mental or behavioral health therapeutic support group, legal counsel, financial advisor, or tax preparer,”
            • “any local, state, or federal government agency for any reason, including disclosing the existence and terms of a settlement agreement, without first notifying the employer,”
            • anyone “in response to legal process, such as a subpoena to testify at a deposition or in a court, including disclosing the existence and terms of a settlement agreement, without first notifying the employer,” or
            • anyone “for all other purposes as required by law,”
        • that, as for agreements that also contain a nondisparagement provision,
          • “disclosure of the underlying facts of any alleged discriminator or unfair employment practice within the parameters specified (above) does not constitute disparagement,”
          • if “the employer disparages the employee or prospective employee to a third party, the employer may not seek to enforce the nondisparagement or nondisclosure provisions of the agreement or seek damages against the employee or any other party to the agreement for violating those provisions, but all other remaining terms of the agreement remain enforceable,”
      • As for agreements that also contain a liquidated damages provision, the liquidated damages provision’s amount must be
        • “reasonable and proportionate in light of the anticipated actual economic loss that a breach of the agreement would cause,”
        • “varied based on the nature or severity of the breach,” and
        • not “punitive,”
      • Additionally, an “addendum” to the agreement must
        • be signed by all parties to the agreement
        • wherein each party must “attest to compliance with” new Colorado Revised Statute section 24-34-407(1)(a) (summarized above).
    • Not only does the failure to comply with this new law invalidate the non-disclosure (and non-disparagement) language (and related language like any related liquidated damages clause), but merely providing it to an employee or prospective employee also subjects an employer to claims by the employee, prospective employee, as well as the CDLE for damages, costs, attorney fees, penalties including a $5,000 penalty, which penalty may be reduced including to $0.00 if the employer proves “good faith.”
  • The “repository” of complaints that will now be required to be maintained for at least 5 years must contain all written and oral complaints, the identity of each complainant (if known, in other words, if not anonymous), the identity of the alleged wrongdoer, and the substance of the complaint.
    • This repository must be kept separate from personnel records.
    • This repository is not open to public inspection.
    • However, employers should anticipate that all federal, state and local EEO agencies will demand to see it (as will litigants through discovery), though it is not clear if it must be made available to any agency other than the CDLE.

 

  • Job/Promotional Posting Requirements: The Colorado legislature also amended its relatively recent job opening and promotional opportunity posting requirements, including, effective January 1, 2024:
    • As for “job opportunity” postings, employers have been required to post pay ranges, including benefits, now they will be required to post, in addition, the anticipated window when applications  will close.
      • A “job opportunity” is defined to be “a current or anticipated vacancy for which the employer is considering a candidate or candidates or interviewing a candidate or candidates or that the employer externally posts.”
      • A “vacancy” is defined to be “an open position, whether as a result of a newly created position or a vacated position.”
      • After filling a job opportunity, employers must disclose the following,
        • The name of the individual selected,
        • Their new job title,
          • And, if they were an internal hire, their former job title,
        • Information on how to apply for similar positions in the future.
        • Such notice must be given at least to the employees with whom that individual will work regularly
        • Such notice is not required if it would violate the selected individual’s privacy rights, health or safety.
    • No notice will be required for “career progressions,” which phrase is defined as
      • “a regular or automatic movement from one position to another,”
      • which is “based on time in a specific role or other objective metrics,”
      • so long as the employer has already disclosed to “all eligible employees the requirements for career progression, in addition to each position’s terms or compensation, benefits, full-time or part-time status, duties, and access to further advancement.”
    • Out-of-state employers will be partially and temporarily exempted from job posting requirements until July 1, 2029, so long as the company
      • has no physical location in Colorado,
      • has fewer than 15 workers in Colorado,
        • “all of whom work only remotely,”
      • and posts any “remote job opportunities.”

 

  • HFWA/paid sick leave: In addition to existing HFWA paid sick leave requirements, Colorado workers will, effective August 7, 2023, be able to take HFWA paid sick leave for the following additional reasons:
    • grieving, funerals and memorials, financial and legal matters after the death of a family member,
    • caring for a family member whose school or place of care has been closed due to inclement weather, loss of power, heat, water, or other unexpected events,
    • evacuations of the worker’s residence due to inclement weather, loss of power, heat, etc.

 

  • Job applications: Effective July 1, 2024, job applications in Colorado may not include questions related to age, date of birth, dates of attendance at education programs or graduation from them, unless required by federal, state or local law. (For readers who may have seen discussion of this new law, SB 23-058, in other resources, it has been colloquially referred to as the “Don’t Ask Applicants’ Age” law).

 

  • Penalties related to service animals: HB 23-1032 revised the remedies for refusing to allow use of a service animal by disabled individuals to now include actual damages or a fine of $3,500 per violation.

 

  • State actions to recover reimbursement of overdue wage payments: SB 23-231 allows the CDLE, through a t0-be-established wage theft enforcement fund, to pay employees overdue wages, if overdue by at least six months, then recover reimbursement from employers.

 

  • Military leave: HB 23-1045 allows Colorado workers in the Colorado National Guard or U.S. reserves to take up to three workweeks (instead of Colorado law’s prior 15 days) of military leave for military training and, at their discretion, to take, as they do, available paid leave.
/0 Comments/by

Federal government issues guidances regarding the use of AI, software and algorithms in employment

The federal government issued multiple guidances regarding the use of AI, software and algorithms in employment including hiring, accommodation decisions and medical or other private inquiries. See for example \recent guidances by the EEOC, White House, and DOJ.

The White House summarized its goals for an AI Bill of Rights in employment, as follows:

You should not face discrimination by algorithms and systems should be used and designed in an equitable way. Algorithmic discrimination occurs when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law. Depending on the specific circumstances, such algorithmic discrimination may violate legal protections. Designers, developers, and deployers of automated systems should take proactive and continuous measures to protect individuals and communities from algorithmic discrimination and to use and design systems in an equitable way. This protection should include proactive equity assessments as part of the system design, use of representative data and protection against proxies for demographic features, ensuring accessibility for people with disabilities in design and development, pre-deployment and ongoing disparity testing and mitigation, and clear organizational oversight. Independent evaluation and plain language reporting in the form of an algorithmic impact assessment, including disparity testing results and mitigation information, should be performed and made public whenever possible to confirm these protections.

The White House’s goal for an AI Bill of Rights includes components regarding data privacy, notices and consent.

The EEOC gives several examples of ways that “an employer’s use of algorithmic decision-making tools could violate.”

  • The employer does not provide a “reasonable accommodation” that is necessary for a job applicant or employee to be rated fairly and accurately by the algorithm.

  • The employer relies on an algorithmic decision-making tool that intentionally or unintentionally “screens out” an individual with a disability, even though that individual is able to do the job with a reasonable accommodation. “Screen out” occurs when a disability prevents a job applicant or employee from meeting—or lowers their performance on—a selection criterion, and the applicant or employee loses a job opportunity as a result. A disability could have this effect by, for example, reducing the accuracy of the assessment, creating special circumstances that have not been taken into account, or preventing the individual from participating in the assessment altogether.

  • The employer adopts an algorithmic decision-making tool for use with its job applicants or employees that violates the ADA’s restrictions on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.

 

/0 Comments/by

Third Circuit holds that an employer’s decision to conduct an investigation can be used as evidence of pretext even if the investigation produces credible evidence of a violation warranting discharge

In Canada v. Samuel Grossi & Sons, Inc., Third Circuit held that an employer’s decision to conduct an investigation can be used as evidence of pretext even if the investigation later produces credible evidence of a violation warranting discharge. In the case, the company asserted that it had terminated an employee after a search of his phone confirmed he’d been soliciting sex workers during working hours. The employee asserted that the company had looked at his phone only in retaliation when he requested FMLA; he also asserted other claims including FMLA interference, disability-related claims and racial discrimination.

For the reasons we have already explained, we reject a rule that incentivizes employers to dig up reasons to fire an employee who has engaged in protected activity, and then immunizes them from suit based upon a subsequent fortuitous discovery of grounds for termination.

Here, as in Hobgood, there is a “ ‘convincing mosaic’ of circumstantial evidence,”63 which, when taken as a whole and viewed in a light favorable to Canada’s case, could convince a reasonable jury that he was the victim of unlawful retaliation.64 In other words, the evidence could support a finding that the search itself was retaliatory.

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit reinstates some claims by a worker but affirms dismissal of others

In a case involving rather significant allegations of misconduct, the Tenth Circuit parsed through the evidence to hold, on summary judgment, that some of the worker’s claims were properly dismissed but other should have been allowed to proceed.

On her claim of discrimination, her case included a claim that an officer of the company said he felt she was “building a case” against the company and was “more trouble than she’s worth,” that he called her and another African-American female employee “Black b*s from Atlanta” and “resident street walkers.” However, the Tenth Circuit rejected the claim because it found no evidence that the officer was a decisionmaker or that he had any input in the adverse employment decision affecting her.

On her claim of retaliation, though, the Court noted that the same officer had allegedly laughed and said, “Let her try,” when the possibility of her re-applying for promotion in the future was discussed.

The court analyzed a number of other claims and multiple other allegations of specific evidence, including an incident involving rather graphic allegations of sexual harassment at a party attended by plaintiff and her co-workers, which the Court held was not sufficient to support a claim because the party occurred well before the time period for filing a charge of discrimination (300 days). But, the Court noted she claimed that she’d been asked multiple questions at work about her breasts, been subjected to “sexual banter,” on a near “daily basis,” much of which was corroborated by other female workers. The Court held this was sufficient to support claims of hostile work environment and constructive discharge.

The case is Ford v. Jackson National Life Ins. Co.

/0 Comments/by

CDLE revises INFO no. 9 regarding Colorado Equal Pay law’s posting requirements

Following up on its recent informal email announcement, the CDLE has revised its Interpretive Notice and Formal Opinion (INFO) no. 9 interpreting Colorado’s Equal Pay for Equal Work Act’s posting requirements. Because the CDLE does not go through formal rulemaking when it issues INFOs, they do not carry the weight of law; however, they the CDLE’s opinion of how the law should be interpreted and reflect how the CDLE intends to interpret the law when called upon to apply it.

In these revisions, the CDLE confirmed its prior statement that covered employers may not evade the law by simply posting disclaimers in a job posting to the effect that Coloradans are ineligible. The CDLE confirmed here its position that these posting requirements do generally apply whenever Coloradans can access a posting, the work can be performed in Colorado (even if remotely into another state) and certainly when it can only be performed in Colorado. Key new language has been included in the following passages from INFO no. 9:

Covered job postings include any posting by a covered employer for either (1) work tied to Colorado locations or (2) remote work performable anywhere, but not (3) work performable only at non-Colorado worksites — as discussed below, under the header, “Out-of-State Jobs Are Excluded.”

…

Out-of-State Jobs Are Excluded. Employers need not disclose compensation for jobs to be performed entirely outside Colorado (which includes non-Colorado jobs that may include modest travel to Colorado), even if the job posting is in, or reaches, Colorado. Because the text of the Act excludes no jobs, the out-of-state exception is a merely implied one that must be applied narrowly, only where an out-of-state worksite makes Colorado law arguably inapplicable. The out-of-state exception therefore applies to only jobs tied to non-Colorado worksites (e.g. waitstaff at restaurant locations in other states), but not to remote work performable in Colorado or elsewhere. Thus, a remote job posting, even if it states that the employer will not accept Colorado applicants, remains covered by the Act’s transparency requirements: the Act expressly covers all jobs, so a Colorado-covered employer’s posting of work performable anywhere is not within the narrow implied exception for out-of-state worksites to which Colorado law is arguably inapplicable.

Out-of-State Postings Are Excluded. Employers need not disclose compensation in job postings made entirely outside Colorado. For example, compensation and benefits need not be included in a printed advertisement or posting entirely in another state, but must be included in an online posting accessible by Colorado residents.

The CDLE added language confirming this is true for promotional opportunities as well:

As with job postings generally — see the above section, “Out-of-State Jobs Are Excluded,” as to the scope of the out-of-state exemption applicable here as well — remote jobs do not qualify for this exclusion; promotional opportunity notices for such jobs must include compensation and benefits.

Regarding promotional opportunities, INFO no. 9 continues to require that, if not actually provided to employees, the posting — such as on an intranet site — “must be posted for long enough that employees can reasonably access it.” The CDLE does not give further guidance on how long that would be.

Unfortunately some of the new language is likely to increase not decrease confusion about this new law. Consider for example this sentence (emphasis added), which apparently was meant to confirm that a simple Help Wanted sign is not a “posting” and need not contain information about compensation, benefits, etc.

A “posting” is any written or printed communication (whether electronic or hard copy) that the employer has a specific job or jobs available or is accepting job applications for a particular position or positions, but not a “Help Wanted” sign or similar communication indicating only generally, without reference to any particular positions, that an employer is accepting applications or hiring.

Did the EEOC really intend to require that a small family-owned restaurant who hangs a “Cooks Wanted” sign in the window has to print the salary range, benefits, etc., on the sign?  Consider a sign at a larger company saying “Drivers Wanted”; how could such a sign even contain all the information that is encompassed in a driver’s position?

/0 Comments/by

DOL expands religious exemption from EEO laws to federal contractors even if closely-held corporations

Continuing to expand on religious exemptions from EEO laws recognized by both the Supreme Court and itself, the DOL has expanded, in a final rule applicable to federal contractors, the religious exemption to now include even closely-held corporations so long as the company qualifies as a religious organization.

To qualify as religious a corporation, association, educational institution, society, school, college, university, or institution of learning may, or may not: have a mosque, church, synagogue, temple, or other house of worship; or be supported by, be affiliated with, identify with, or be composed of individuals sharing, any single religion, sect, denomination, or other religious tradition.

As an example, the DOL gives, in its rule, a small business that makes candlesticks for churches:

41 CFR 60-1.3(4)(i)(A) Example. A closely held for-profit manufacturer makes and sells metal candlesticks and other decorative items. The manufacturer’s mission statement asserts that it is committed to providing high-quality candlesticks and similar items to all of its customers, a majority of which are churches and synagogues. Some of the manufacturer’s items are also purchased by federal agencies for use during diplomatic events and presentations. The manufacturer regularly consults with ministers and rabbis regarding new designs to ensure that they conform to any religious specifications. The manufacturer also advertises heavily in predominantly religious publications and donates a portion of each sale to charities run by churches and synagogues.

/0 Comments/by

CDLE issues more new information for Colorado employers

Implementing its most recent batch of rules on a variety of topics, the CDLE just issued yet more information for Colorado employers on those topics.

Are your ready for January 1, 2021?

  • Looking for more information about the CDLE’s latest batch of rules?

Join us for a complimentary, engaging and interactive webinar.

L2S Legal, LLC is recognized by SHRM to offer SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP professional credits (PDCs). This program is valid for 1.0 PDCs.

When: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 Noon 12:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vGmrkeFcQ6iaM26Hg3iMGQ 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing Zoom’s information for joining the webinar.

Where to find the CDLE’s latest information

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s latest information is available at its website.

As noted in recent posts on this blog, look for the CDLE’s latest rules on its Rulemaking page, to include the following rules:

  • Colorado Overtime And Minimum Pay Standards (“Comps”) Order #37, 7 CCR 1103-1;
  • Wage Protection Rules, 7 CCR 1103-7;
  • Direct Investigations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-8;
  • Colorado Whistleblower, Anti-Retaliation, Non-Interference, And Notice-Giving (“Colorado Warning”) Rules, 7 CCR 1103-11;
  • Colorado State Labor Relations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-12; And
  • Equal Pay Transparency Rules, 7 CCR 1103-13.

Look for its latest posters on the CDLE’s Poster page (the following list is quoted from CDLE)

  • The “Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards” (“COMPS”) poster and notice, covering wage and hour law — see COMPS Rule 7.4, Posting and Distribution Requirements, unchanged from the 2020 COMPS Order, which requires employers to display the annually revised poster (and send it to off-site employees), plus include either the poster or COMPS itself in any handbook or manual the employer has.
  • The “Colorado Workplace Public Health Rights Poster: Paid Leave, Whistleblowing, & Protective Equipment” poster and notice, covering HFWA and PHEW since their enactment in July 2020 — see Colorado WARNING Rule 4, Notice and Posting Rights and Responsibilities, unchanged from the temporary WARNING Rules in effect since September 21, 2020, which requires employers to post and give employees notice of these rights.
  • Translations of posters and INFOs — to implement requirements for employers to provide posters and notices to non-English-fluent workers, DLSS in 2020 posted translations of its posters in 12 languages and Spanish translations of INFOs (on the same pages as the English posters and INFOs), with new translations of the 2021-updated posters to be posted later this month, and translations of INFOs coming thereafter.
  • With translations into Spanish and other language.

Look for informational summaries on the CDLE’s INFO page, where the CDLE provides the following information summaries (again quoting the CDLE):

  • INFO# 1: Colorado Overtime &, Minimum Pay Standards Order (COMPS Order) #37 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 1: Orden de COMPS #37] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 2:DLSS Wage Claim Investigation Process
  • INFO# 3: Tips (Gratuities) and Tipped Employees Under Colorado Wage Law
  • INFO# 4: Meal and Rest Period
  • INFO# 5: Public Health Emergency Whistleblower Rights [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 5: Ley de Protección al Denunciante de Emergencias de Salud Pública] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 6A: Paid Leave Under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, through December 31, 2020 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 6A: Pago por Ausencia Laboral bajo el Acta de Familias y Lugares de Trabajos Saludables, vigente hasta el 31 de diciembre, 2020]
  • INFO# 6B: Paid Leave Under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, as of January 1, 2021 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 6B: Pago por Ausencia Laboral bajo el Acta de Familias y Lugares de Trabajos Saludables, a partir de 1º de enero] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 7: Payment of Wages & Required Record-Keeping
  • INFO #8: Colorado Chance to Compete Act (“Ban the Box”)

The CDLE also invites interested individuals to sign up for the agency’s email alerts.

Highlights from the CDLE’s latest information

In recent posts, this blog has summarized a number of the CDLE’s latest rules. Some of the highlights from this most recent information just posted by the CDLE implementing its new rules includes the following:

  • INFO #1: The new hourly minimum wage in Colorado will be $12.32. The new minimum guaranteed salary for exempt workers will be $40,500.
    • Employers are reminded they must distribute a copy of the COMPS poster or the entire COMPS Order 37 (new for this year) with any policies/handbooks that are being distributed otherwise. Signatures must be obtained.
  • INFO #4: The CDLE has taken a strict approach to meals and rest periods, summarized in INFO #4.
    • Employers are responsible for not only “authorizing” workers to take breaks, but they must “permit” them to do so, and CDLE explains a rest break is “authorized” if the company has an adequate policy for example, but even if “authorized,” it is not “permitted” if the employee is “unable or discouraged” to take the break. Evidence that the employee is not “permitted” to take a break may simply be the employee’s own statement that they “felt pressure from the employer not to take the break.
    • It is the employer’s obligation, not the employee’s, to track and record and keep records of employee breaks. An employer cannot simply say it assumed the breaks were being taken as “authorized” where an employee claims not to have been “permitted” to take the break.
    • When a break is missed, it counts as work time, must be paid as such, even if that triggers daily or weekly overtime.
  • INFO #5: In its rules and now in its INFO implementing Colorado’s new PHEW law (already in effect), the CDLE has take the position that an employer who provides no PPE (mask) in a time of a public health emergency may not prohibit an employee from using an unsafe mask. PHEW allows employers to prohibit employees from using masks that do not meet the company’s requirements, only if — according to the CDLE’s interpretation — the employer has first provided its own mask to the worker. Employers should consider making appropriate disposable masks available in their workforces, so that they can later prohibit inappropriate masks that employees might otherwise wish to wear.
  • INFO #7: The CDLE summarized rules regarding the payment of wages, the establishment of pay periods, payment of final wages at separation, pay statement requirements and recordkeeping requirements.
  • INFO #8: The CDLE explained Colorado’s new ban-the-box law. Companies may not state in job applications or advertisements “that a person with a criminal history may not apply,” nor ask about the person’s criminal history on an application, nor require the applicant to disclose any criminal history on the application. Additionally, the CDLE says this prohibits an employer from stating that background checks will be required. Although an employer may require background checks as part of a conditional offer of employment, that may not be stated in an application or advertisement. The CDLE explains the limited exceptions available where employers are otherwise required by law to inquire into these matters.
/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit holds no adverse employment action is required in a failure-to-accommodate case

The Americans with Disabilities Act recognizes several types of claims that a disabled worker might file against their employer. Typically statutory employment claims include a requirement that the plaintiff prove an adverse employment action, meaning that they suffered harm to their employment, such as being discharged, promoted or other material impact on the significant terms and conditions of employment. The adverse employment action element poses a threshold against de minimis claims.

The Tenth Circuit held that a disabled plaintiff who asserts their employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation need not prove an adverse employment action. In the case before it, the jury found that, even if the employer may have failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s disability, it did not result in her discharge, demotion or other harm to the terms and conditions of her employment. Initially a panel of the Tenth Circuit affirmed, but, re-hearing the case en banc, the Tenth Circuit held, over a strong and sizable dissent, that no adverse employment action need be proven because a failure-to-accommodate is itself actionable.

Source: Exby-Stolley v. Weld County, No. 16-1412, — P.3d —, 2020 BL 417137 (10th Cir. 10/28/20)

/0 Comments/by

Supreme Court reinforces anti-discrimination law’s ministerial exemption

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld religious elementary schools’ ability to otherwise-discriminate against teachers under the “ministerial” exemption. Title VII, the ADEA and other anti-discrimination laws recognize a ministerial exemption, consistent with the First Amendment, that permits a synagogue, for example, to require that its rabbi actually be Jewish and that she adhere faithfully to the synagogue’s interpretation of Judaism.

In this case two teachers sued for wrongful discharge. One alleged age discrimination, the other alleged disability discrimination. The schools responded that it need not prove the real reason for their discharges because neither were protected under either the age or disability discrimination laws, because both fell under the ministerial exemption. Neither teacher was a “minister” in the sense of being ordained, having the title of a minister, or having any religious education or formal training. However, both taught courses that included religion. Both had been instructed when hired and again during their employment that their individual faith and morals were essential components of their jobs performance. Both prayed with their students as part of their jobs. The majority of the Court held all of that was sufficient for both to fall within the ministerial exemption.

There is abundant record evidence that they both performed vital religious duties. Educating and forming students in the Catholic faith lay at the core of the mission of the schools where they taught, and their employment agreements and faculty handbooks specified in no uncertain terms that they were expected to help the schools carry out this mission and that their work would be evaluated to ensure that they were fulfilling that responsibility. As elementary school teachers responsible for providing instruction in all subjects, including religion, they were the members of the school staff who were entrusted most directly with the responsibility of educating their students in the faith. And not only were they obligated to provide instruction about the Catholic faith, but they were also expected to guide their students, by word and deed, toward the goal of living their lives in accordance with the faith. They prayed with their students, attended Mass with the students, and prepared the children for their participation in other religious activities. …. Their titles did not include the term “minister,” and they had less formal religious training, but their core responsibilities as teachers of religion were essentially the same. And both their schools expressly saw them as playing a vital part in carrying out the mission of the church, and the schools’ definition and explanation of their roles is important. In a country with the religious diversity of the United States, judges cannot be expected to have a complete understanding and appreciation of the role played by every person who performs a particular role in every religious tradition. A religious institution’s explanation of the role of such employees in the life of the religion in question is important.

Source: Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, case no. 19-267 (7/8/2020).

/0 Comments/by

EEOC confirms coronavirus antibody testing not permitted as part of return-to-workplace program, although active-virus testing may be permitted

The EEOC updated its FAQ guidance with Q&A no. A7, advising that an employer may not require coronavirus antibody testing (which is the blood test done to see if the person’s blood suggests they were previously exposed to the virus sufficient to create antibodies) as part of a company’s return-to-workplace program. However the EEOC advised (1) this may change as the science develops and (2) an employer may be able to require active virus testing (which is commonly done with a nasal swab) if such testing is uniformly required and “job-related consistent with business necessity.”

A.7.  CDC said in its Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” In light of this CDC guidance, under the ADA may an employer require antibody testing before permitting employees to re-enter the workplace? (6/17/20)

No. An antibody test constitutes a medical examination under the ADA. In light of CDC’s Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace,” an antibody test at this time does not meet the ADA’s “job related and consistent with business necessity” standard for medical examinations or inquiries for current employees. Therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA.  Please note that an antibody test is different from a test to determine if someone has an active case of COVID-19 (i.e., a viral test).  The EEOC has already stated that COVID-19 viral tests are permissible under the ADA.

The EEOC will continue to closely monitor CDC’s recommendations, and could update this discussion in response to changes in CDC’s recommendations.

/0 Comments/by

Considering a voluntary internal audit to prepare for Colorado’s new equal pay law?

Last year I co-authored an article for the Colorado Lawyer about Colorado’s new equal pay law (the Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, “CEPEWA”), with two of CEPEWA’s drafters, Sarah Parady and Charlotte Sweeney. CEPEWA will take effect January 1, 2021. In our article, we noted that CEPEWA “CEPEWA does not grandfather current pay disparities” and further that “proof of intent to discriminate is not an element of a CEPEWA violation.” We recommended employers consider performing a voluntary internal audit to identify and eliminate any inadvertent pay disparities. Indeed CEPEWA recognizes a possible reduction of exposure if internal audits are done.

A new article was just published in the Colorado Lawyer discussing what such an audit might look like.

Source: Mind the Gap: Practical Solutions to Minimize Pay Equity Claims, by Christine Lyman, Lonnie Giamela, and LaLonnie Gray, The Colorado Lawyer, vol. 49 no. 5 (May 2020)

/0 Comments/by

Colorado joins California, New York, New Jersey and Virginia by banning discrimination on the basis of hairstyles

Colorado will be adding to the list of protected classes against which discrimination is prohibited “hair texture, hair type, or a protective hairstyle that is commonly or historically associated with race.” Because the current legislative session has been extended due to the on-going coronavirus events, we do not know the precise date when this new law will take effect. It has been signed by Governor Polis. By its own terms, this new law will “effect at 12:01 a.m. on the day following the expiration of the ninety-day period after final adjournment of the general assembly (August 5, 2020, if adjournment sine die is on May 6, 2020)” unless extended by a referendum petition (parenthetical in original). Employers should consider revising their EEO policies and handbooks to add this to the list of protected classes against which they will not permit discrimination.

/0 Comments/by

Supreme Court sides with Tenth Circuit, resolving split in Circuits, holding failure-to-exhaust is a procedural affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect

Resolving a split among the Circuits, the Supreme Court sided with the Tenth Circuit‘s recent approach, ruling that an employee’s failure to exhaust the statutory prerequisites for filing claims of discrimination and most kinds of EEO (equal employment opportunity), i.e., Title VII claims, is a procedural affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional defect. This means the defense can be waived by employers who fail to assert it.

Employers should ensure that they review all available defenses and assert viable ones throughout their defense of such claims.

Source: Fort Bend County v. Davis, — Sup.Ct. —, case no. 18-525 (6/3/19).

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit holds plaintiff’s case insufficient even though supervisor kept a special file on the plaintiff in case he some day decided to “pull the race card”

The Tenth Circuit held a plaintiff failed to establish a case worthy of trial, entering summary judgment for lack of evidence of discrimination, even though the plaintiff submitted evidence his supervisor had kept a special file on him because, plaintiff contends the supervisor admitted, he feared plaintiff would some day “pull the race card.”

The plaintiff, who was African-American, sued because he’d been denied a promotion. That same supervisor had evaluated the candidates for promotion and was part of the 4-person panel that decided not to promote plaintiff.

The Tenth Circuit held, first, that the supervisor’s having kept a special file on plaintiff was not an indication of discrimination. This was true even though the evidence suggested the supervisor hadn’t kept such a file on any other individual. The Tenth Circuit held further that it was non-discriminatory even if the supervisor had said he was keeping the special file because he feared plaintiff would “pull the race card.” The Tenth Circuit said that admission suggested merely that the file was
“a precautionary measure, not a symptom of invidious animus.”

Then, the court held, even if other evidence did suggest a discriminatory animus, the plaintiff had failed to prove that the supervisor’s animus had somehow infected the other three panelists.

Employers are cautioned this case illustrates a difficult tension in the current status of analyzing motions for summary judgment. It remains to be seen whether future courts will agree that keeping a special file only on a minority worker is somehow non-discriminatory simply because the supervisor fears the worker will “play the race card.” Indeed the Tenth Circuit itself did not identify the decision for official publication, saying it was “not binding precedent,” although it can nonetheless be cited “For its persuasive value.”

Source: Sasser v. Salt Lake City, case no. 17-4198 (10th Cir. 5/20/19).

/0 Comments/by

New Jersey Adds And Expands On State Laws Banning Non-Disclosure Provisions

Following up on developments in California and New York, as well as under the federal tax code, New Jersey has banned nondisclosure provisions, a/k/a confidentiality provisions, in agreements, including employment agreements and settlement agreements, that would prohibit disclosure of allegations related not only to sexual harassment but also discrimination, retaliation and other forms of prohibited harassment.

Source: New Jersey Senate Bill S121.

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit reaffirms Adverse Employment Action element of discrimination claims, including failure-to-accommodate claims under the ADA

The Tenth Circuit reaffirmed that plaintiffs must prove they suffered an Adverse Employment Action in all discrimination claims, including claims alleging a failure to accommodate under the ADA.

(A)n adverse employment action is an element of a failure-to-accommodate claim 
To establish an Adverse Employment Action, the plaintiff must prove more than that she suffered a “a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.” Rather, the Tenth Circuit held she must prove that she suffered harm to “a term, condition, or privilege of employment.”
Source: Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners, (10th Cir. 2018). 
/2 Comments/by

“Zero Tolerance” policies go too far according to … the EEOC?

Employers should steer clear of “zero tolerance” policies according to the EEOC. A “zero tolerance” policy provides that any form of proscribed behavior (typically sexual harassment or discrimination) will result in immediate discharge.

Zero tolerance policies can “chill reporting,” cautions EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum (a Democrat appointee). According to Commissioner Feldblum, individuals may choose not to report harassment when they know it might result in the accused’s discharge: “A lot of people don’t want their co-worker to be fired, they just want the conduct to stop.”

It’s not just one EEOC Commissioner who doesn’t like zero-tolerance policies. It’s also the position taken by the EEOC’s 2015 task force on harassment. Its July 2016 report called “zero tolerance” policies “misleading and potentially counterproductive.” Like Commissioner Feldblum, the task force cautioned that such policies “may contribute to employee under-reporting of harassment.”

Instead, the EEOC recommends a policy that reserves to employers the ability to determine the appropriate level of discipline, up to and including, but not necessarily, immediate discharge.

Source: “Beware of ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policies, EEOC Commissioner Warns,” BNA Bloomberg (7/11/18).

/1 Comment/by

Google memo litigation continues, on two fronts

As previously reported on this blog, the NLRB recently cleared Google of charges that it had allegedly violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act by discharging the author of a controversial memo that attempted to explain his view that men are biologically more fit to be engineers than women. The NLRB held that, while some aspects of his memo might have been protected under Section 7 — a part of the NLRA that applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces — there were parts that stereotyped women and warranted Google’s decision to “nip in the bud” (quoting the NLRB General Counsel) his sexist communication.

The NLRB General Counsel’s decision, though, doesn’t end the litigation. There are now at least two separate lawsuits on-going: One by the memo’s author, James Damore, and another by a critic of Damore’s views, Tim Chevalier.

Both are former employees, terminated by Google for their speech involving Damore’s memo. In his memo, Damore advocated that Google had a culture of discrimination against white men and conservatatives, despite his view that men were in fact biologically better fit to be engineers at the highest level of the tech industry. In contrast Chevalier advocated verbally, through conduct, by email, on social media and on Google’s internal systems, that the Damore memo was “misogynistic,” that it was hostile to protected classes including gender, sex and race, and that it reflected, he alleged, a larger culture of hostility, including bullying, at Google on those same bases.

Damore’s lawsuit includes allegations, under California’s anti-discrimination laws, that Google discriminates against conservatives, Caucasians and men. Damore seeks to represent a class of such individuals against Google.

Chevalier’s lawsuit, also filed under California state law, asserts that he too was terminated for his political speech, including his activities to oppose not only Damore’s memo but also the Trump Administration’s politics and to protect the rights of minorities and women and rights associated with gender preference and sexual orientation. Also, Chevalier, a transgendered man, alleges his termination was linked to his efforts to protect related to sexual orientation and gender preference.

Both complaints are lengthy and warrant additional review by interested readers. Those are just some of their allegations. The merits of Mr. Damore and Mr. Chevalier’s complaints will be litigated, but the filing of their lawsuits illustrates how labor laws like the NLRA interact with employment laws like those at-issue in these lawsuits. An employer can comply with one set of laws and run afoul of another.

Sources: Duvalier complaint; Chevalier complaint.

/0 Comments/by

NLRB clears Google, signals more employer-respectful approach to discipline of workplace misconduct

In a shift from recent NLRB decisions holding employers liable under the National Labor Relations Act’s Section 7 for disciplining employee misconduct that is offensive, disrespectful and harassing, the NLRB General Counsel recently cleared Google of charges that, by disciplining an employee for having written an offensive memo, it had somehow violated the Act.

Section 7 is a part of the National Labor Relations Act that applies to both unionized and non-unionized workforces, so this decision is of equal interest to companies without unions as to companies with unions representing their workforces.

In this case, Google’s employee famously wrote a memo that sought to explain why men received more favorable treatment than women in Google’s high tech workplace. The memo was considered by many to be highly offensive and received substantial national press. Included in his memo were stereotyping comments about women, such that women are more prone to “neuroticism” and therefore less able to work in a stressful environment and that more men score in the “top of the curve” than women.

Although the employee “cloaked” his memo in “science,” especially biology, quoting the NLRB, the Board’s General Counsel refused to engage on the so-called science, instead finding that the stereotyping comments were offensive and specifically offensive in a gender-specific manner, implicating the nation’s laws against sex discrimination. The Board’s General Counsel noted that the memo triggered internal complaints of sexual harassment and multiple female engineering candidates withdrew their applications.

The Board’s General Counsel also refused to condone the parts of the memo that may have been protected under Section 7, which protects an employee’s efforts to further his workplace’s wages, hours and working conditions.

(W)hile much of the Charging Party’s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.

In reaching that conclusion, the Board’s General Counsel noted that Google had drafted the employee’s termination notice to expressly say he was not being let go for any lawful aspects of his memo, but rather specifically and only for “(a)dvancing gender stereotypes.”

Finally the Board rejected the argument that the memo was merely speech and that, as such, it alone may not have been a violation of the anti-discrimination laws.

(E)mployers must be able to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action.

It is this “nip in the bud” comment that is mostly likely to be cited by future employers. Recognizing that an employer has the right to “nip in the bud” misconduct seems to be a reversal of recent Obama- era Board decisions.

Source: NLRB Advice Memorandum, case no. 32-CA-205351 (1/16/18).

/0 Comments/by

Employers in New York City face potential for greater punitive damages

The New York Court of Appeals ruled in Chauca v. Abraham that employers face greater exposure for punitive damages under New York City’s anti-discrimination laws than under the federal anti-discrimination law known as Title VII.

The Court observed that existing law mandates that New York City’s law be “as a floor below which the City’s Human Rights Law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.”

The Court then noted that New York City’s law is worded differently and, as such, it “requires neither a showing of malice or awareness of the violation of a protected right.” This means a lower standard than Title VII. However, the Court cautioned the standard should not be so low that punitive damages are available whenever a violation is proven warranting compensatory damages.

Punitive damages represent punishment for wrongful conduct that goes beyond mere negligence and are warranted only where aggravating factors demonstrate an additional level of wrongful conduct (see Home Ins. Co., 75 NY2d at 203-204 ). Accordingly, there must be some heightened standard for such an award.

As a middle ground, the Court articulated a new standard for punitive damages under New York City’s law: The plaintiff must prove “the wrongdoer has engaged in discrimination with wilful or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or a ‘conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard.'”

A dissenter disagreed arguing the majority had set the bar too low. The dissenter would have allowed punitive damages “whenever liability is proved, unless an employer has adopted and fully implemented the antidiscrimination programs, policies, and procedures promulgated by the Commission on Human Rights, as an augmentation to compensatory damages, and would answer the certified question accordingly.”

Source: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X1OFI9SU0000N?

/0 Comments/by

SCOTUS grants review in Masterpiece Cakeshop case

In a case that pits religious freedoms against anti-discrimination laws, the Supreme Court agreed today to hear the appeal of a Colorado case against a baker that refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.  Hear me (Bill Berger) discussing this development on 850 KOA moments after the order.

Source: 062617zor_8759.pdf

/0 Comments/by