Posted on February 27, 2008 1:06 PM by
Shanti Atkins
The U.S. Supreme Court has been busy this week, passing down two major employment law decisions. A brief summary of each case is below, along with its compliance training impact:
Admissibility of "Me Too" Evidence, is a Case-by-Case Analysis
A closely watched Supreme Court case, Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn was decided yesterday. Mendelsohn was a laid-off older worker who sued her employer for age bias. At trial Mendelsohn attempted to rely on the testimony of other older workers who also were fired from the same company. The district court refused to allow the testimony, indicating that the facts of these co-workers were not relevant, because they had been fired by other supervisors, not the supervisor who laid off Mendelsohn.
The 10th Circuit reversed that order, holding this kind of testimony always should be heard because it is "relevant to [the company's] animus toward older workers." In a unanimous decision in favor of Mendelsohn, Justice Clarence Thomas stated, "[t]he question whether evidence of discrimination by other supervisors is relevant ... is fact-based and depends on many factors, including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances."
The compliance training take-away? Be sure that your discrimination and harassment training programs cover age. As importantly, be clear with managers that their actions not only impact direct reports, but the company as a whole. Even if a manager’s conduct toward one of his or her employees does not promote a lawsuit, those actions could become relevant to a lawsuit involving a completely different employee (or group of employees). While as legal, HR and compliance professionals, this is not a far-fetched concept, to your average front line manager, it may be completely unfathomable. Awareness of the far-reaching impact of workplace conduct needs to be raised.
See the full text of the opinion.
Employees Should Not Suffer for the EEOC's Failures
A second labor and employment opinion was issued from the Court just this morning, Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki. Justice Anthony Kennedy issued the 7-2 ruling in favor of the employees.
The Court was asked to determine if an age discrimination claim against FedEx was filed properly. The ADEA requires that plaintiffs alleging discrimination notify the EEOC and wait 60 days before filing a lawsuit against an employer so that the EEOC can notify the company and investigate the charges. FedEx alleged that the plaintiffs filed suit before notifying the EEOC, but the plaintiffs indicated that they had complied with the law and any failure to notify FedEx was the fault of the EEOC itself.
The Court was highly critical of the EEOC and affirmed the 2nd Circuit allowing the employee's case to proceed. See the full text of the opinion.
The compliance training take-away? While this case highlights more of a procedural issue, it underscores the prevalence of age related discrimination claims. Be sure that your discrimination and harassment training programs don’t suffer from the “silo effect,” only addressing issues of sex and gender. It’s critical to address other protected categories. According to the EEOC's most recent stats, discrimination charges from 2006 break down as follows:
- Race – 35.9%
- Sex – 30.7%
- Retaliation - 25.8%
- Disability – 20.6%
- Age – 21.8%
- National Origin – 11%
- Religion – 3.4%
- Equal pay - 1.1%
The EEOC will soon release its FY 2007 statistics – stay tuned for more updates. And remember, when it comes to establishing affirmative defenses with compliance training, your programs need to address conduct relevant to the lawsuit at hand. A sex harassment training program doesn’t have much to offer if you find yourself fighting an age discrimination claim.