Statutory Exceptions to Employment at Will Flashcards
(179 cards)
Intentional Discrimination with Direct Evidence (Disparate Treatment)
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Direct evidence occurs where there is no room for inference or presumption on the issue of discriminatory intent. “Evidence which reflects a discriminatory or retaliatory attitude correlating to the discrimination or retaliation complained of by the employee that, if believed, proves the existence of a fact without inference or presumption.”
1. Where there is direct evidence, the McDonnell Douglas framework does not apply
2. Possibility of direct evidence is less likely today than 50 years ago
—
Example: A letter from the employer to the employee stating, “You were fired because you are black.”
Four-part test to determine whether remarks are sufficient as direct evidence
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Where a plaintiff offers remarks as direct evidence, we apply a four-part test to determine whether they are sufficient to overcome summary judgment by looking at whether the comments are (Reed v. Neopost USA, Inc, 5th Cir.):
- Related to the protected class
- Proximate in time to the termination
- Made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue, and
- Related to the employment decision at issue
Common Employer Defenses to Direct Evidence
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
- Mixed Motive Defense
- Bona Fide Occupation Qualification (BFOQ)
- After-Acquired Evidence
Mixed-Motive Defense
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Defendant can limit damages in a case involving a direct evidence of discrimination by successfully arguing that it would have taken the same adverse action against the plaintiff even in the absence of any discriminatory motive.
It is not a complete bar but eliminates the recovery of backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement, and promotion
Bona Fide Occupation Qualification (BFOQ)
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Defendant can acknowledge that it discriminated, but argue that the discrimination was a bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ). In order for the BFOQ defense to apply, an employer must show that a protected class has been excluded because substantially all of them cannot perform the job duties
Notice that neither race nor color can ever qualify as a BFOQ
BFOQ - Two-part test from Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
- Part 1: First, the employer must establish that the challenged policy is “reasonably necessary to the essence of the employer’s business.
- Objective test.
- “The greater the safety factor, measured by the likelihood of harm and the probable severity of that harm in case of an accident, the more stringent may be the job qualifications designed to insure safe driving” - Part 2: The employer must demonstrate that it is compelled to rely on age as a proxy for the safety-related job qualifications identified in part 1. Two alternative means for establishing part 2:
- “a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all employees above an age lack the qualifications required for the position,” or
- “it is highly impractical for the employer” to individual test employees to determine if each has the necessary qualifications”
BFOQ Language in Title VII – Sec. 703(e)
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise
After-acquired evidence
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
An employer can use evidence discovered after the discharge or refusal to hire to defend claim of discrimination IF it was of such severity that the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds along if the employer had known of it at the time of the discharge.”
Not a complete bar to plaintiff’s claim – excludes the availability of reinstatement, front pay, and limits back pay (from the date of the unlawful discharge to the date the new information was discovered).
McDonnell Douglas Framework - three steps
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Applies in Intentional Discrimination with Circumstantial Evidence (Disparate Treatment)
- Step One: employee establishes a prima facie case of discrimination
- Step Two: burden shifts to employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action
- Step Three: burden shifts back to employee to show that the employer’s stated reason was pretext
Step One in the McDonnell Douglas framework - prima facie case
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Step One: An employee in a Title VII case must carry the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing:
1. He belongs to a racial minority (protected class)
2. He applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants (qualified for the job)
3. That, despite his qualifications, he was rejected, (adverse action) and
4. That, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complaint’s qualifications (some other evidence of discrimination in the case)
—
These four requirements eliminate the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse action – if Plaintiff satisfies Step One, a presumption arises that the employer unlawfully discriminated
Step Two in the McDonnell Douglas framework - burden shifting
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Step Two: Once a prima facie case is proved, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection. This can be a subjective rather than objective decision (p. 397)
1. If the defendant carries this burden of production, the presumption raised by the prima facie case is rebutted. In other words, the presumption drops from the remainder of the case. (Burdine)
- Defendant merely has to “articulate” a legitimate reason “through the introduction of admissible evidence”
- It is a burden of production, not persuasion
2. If the defendant does nothing (if the trier of fact believes the Plaintiff’s evidence AND the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the Plaintiff (Burdine)
—
Remember: Plaintiff always retains the ultimate burden of persuasion in the case (St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks)
Step Three in the McDonnell Douglas framework - burden shifting
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Step Three: The burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the employers stated reason was pretext
- In Burdine, the Court also stated that “this burden now merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination” (p. 400)
- Pretext definition: That the reason articulated by the employer was not the true reason for the employment decision, or that it was “in fact a coverup for a racially discriminatory decision”
Types of evidence that might show pretext (McDonnell Douglas)
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
- Evidence that white employees were involved in similar unlawful conduct but were retained or rehired
- Evidence of the employer’s treatment of the plaintiff before his termination
- Evidence of the employer’s reaction to plaintiff’s civil rights activities
- Statistics
- Evidence of employer’s policy and practices with minority employment
Two methods Plaintiff can use to establish pretext (Burdine)
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
- Directly: by convincing the factfinder that the employer took the adverse action as a result of an unlawful motive
- Indirectly: by convincing the trier of fact that the reason the employer gave is unworthy of belief
- Here, it permits but doesn’t require plaintiff to win. It is up to the jury to make the determination (Hicks)
Intentional Discrimination Mixed-Motive Cases (Disparate Treatment) - Difference between single vs mixed motive cases
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
A single motive case involves the plaintiff alleging an improper motive for the defendant’s conduct, while the defendant disavows that motive and professes only a non-discriminatory motive
On the other hand, a true mixed motive case involves either a defendant who admits to a partially discriminatory reason for its actions, while also claiming it would have taken the same action were it not for the illegitimate rationale
Burden of proof in mixed-motive case
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Mixed motive is an affirmative defense on which an employer bears the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence
Sec. 706(g)(2)(B): requiring the employer to “demonstrate” that it “would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor.”
Sec. 701(m): The Act defines “demonstrate” as “meeting the burdens of production and persuasion.”
Effect of employer carrying the burden with mixed motive defense
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
If the jury finds the employer has carried its burden regarding the defense, the employer avoids:
- Liability for monetary damages, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress, and punitive damages, and
- Being subject to an order requiring reinstatement or promotion
Impact on employee when employer carries burden with mixed motive defense
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
The court may still grant the plaintiff injunctive relief (excluding reinstatement or promotion) and attorneys’ fees (Sec. 706(g)(2)(B)(i)&(ii)).
Mixed motive defense and direct evidence
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Plaintiff need not present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII
Given that Title VII, “on its face,” “does not mention” that a plaintiff must make a heightened showing through direct evidence, the Court reasoned that in order to obtain an instruction a plaintiff need only present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, was a motivating factor for any employment practice.”
Title VII Remedies for Intentional Discrimination
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
- Injunctive relief
- Reinstatement
- Back pay
- Any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate (examples: declaratory relief, front pay)
Costs
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
“the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs”
Other items included as costs: out of pocket expenses incurred by a party during the courts of the legal proceeding, such as:
- Court filing fees
- Photocopying costs
- Court reporter fees for videotaping and stenographic costs
- Docket costs on appeal
- Jury fees
- Postage
- Long distance phone calls
- Travel expenses
- Expert fees and expenses required to be incurred during the proceeding
How back pay is calculated with the damage cap
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Back pay is not considered part of compensatory damages, so it is not included in the damage cap .
Damage caps
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Limitations: The sum of the amount of compensatory damages awarded under this section for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses, and the amount of punitive damages awarded under this section, shall not exceed, for each complaining party—
- In the case of a respondent who has more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, $50,000
- In the case of a respondent who has more than 100 and fewer than 201 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $100,000, and
- In the case of a respondent who has more than 200 and fewer than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $200,000, and
- In the case of a respondent who has more than 500 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, $300,000
Systemic Disparate Treatment
[employment discrimination: Title VII]
Definition: When an employer intentionally treats a group of people – rather than just one employee – less favorably than others based on a protected characteristic. Depending on the size of the group, it is possible to bring a class action lawsuit as a disparate treatment claim.