SlideShare ist ein Scribd-Unternehmen logo
1 von 17
Employment Law
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
When you see a court de-
                                                    cision made on a “public
D.   “Public Policy” Exceptions to “AT WILL”
                                                    policy” basis, that usually
     Employment Contract ╠ p. 684 et seq. ╣
                                                    means the court does not
                                                    have a clear legal rule to
     1.   Many court decisions have held that
                                                    base its decision on, but
          it would be a “violation of public
                                                    is doing what is “right” in
          policy” to allow an employer to fire
                                                    the circumstances.
          an employee for:
                                                      Usually very vague.
          a.   Refusing to violate a law (text
               examples: committing perjury,
               indecent exposure)
          b.   Exercising a legal right (text example: filing workmen’s
               comp claim), responding to OSHA, EEOC, etc.
          c.   Performing a legal duty (jury duty, report to police, etc.)

     2.   “Whistleblowing” is a special category

          a.   Reporting illegal or irregular activities of fellow employees
               or the company to authorities
          b.   Is in the best interest of the public, but usually not the employer
          c.   Probably not realistic for the employee to keep working
               with the employer he/she reported to authorities
E.   Tort Law – Application in Employment Setting

     1.   Tort law applies equally in employment setting, with exceptions

          a.   Employee cannot sue employer for on-the-job injuries
               (Workers’ Comp)

          b.   Employee might sue fellow worker, but only if unrelated to
               work activities (also Workers’ Comp) or intentional tort

     2.   Employees can sue employers for false or misleading statements
          made concerning job performance (usually in response to inquiry
          from new prospective employer)

          a.   Employer must be careful to only provide facts that
               have been/can be documented (not vague accusations)

          b.   Most employers provide very limited information

          c.   But ex-employers may be liable for not providing relevant
               negative information (see Cal. case re teacher)
3.   Employee Privacy

     a.   Becoming a significant issue, especially with regard to
          employer use of “computer surveillance.

     b.   Employer-provided email system (or Internet access)

          (1) Employer historically has been able to monitor work
              activity
              (A) Should that apply to personal activity while “on
                   break” at her desk?
              (B) Is it reasonable to expect/allow the higher degree
                   of scrutiny made available by computers?

          (2) How can the employer tell when employee is not “on
              the clock”?

     c.   What off-the-job or other information should be available?
          (1) Drug testing (which can detect off-the-job use)
          (2) Evidence relating to physical condition
              (A) Which may affect ability to do the job
              (B) Which may affect health or disability insurance cost
                   (See Gattaca)
III.   DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT (Civil Rights Act, Title VII) ╠ p. 697 ╣

       A.   Title VII is one part of Civil Rights Act of 1964

            1.   All titles of Civil Rights Act prohibit discrimination, but apply
                 in different settings (e.g. housing, public accommodation, lending)
            2.   Types of discrimination and methods of proof are essentially
                 the same
            3.   Title VII also applies to unions
            4.   Title VII does not apply to employers with very few employees
                 (under 20?) but parallel state law applies to all

       B.   Major Categories (for proof purposes)

            1.   Disparate Treatment         [ “dis - PEAR – at “]

                 Individual employee receiving differing treatment due to his/her
                 membership in “protected class”

            2.   Disparate Impact

                 Outwardly neutral requirement/rule has a significantly greater
                 impact on persons in “protected class”
“Prima facie” translates as
C.   Disparate Impact                           “at first face”. To say that
                                                a party has proven a prima
     1.   Employee (or applicant or group)      facie case means that if no
          produces evidence that specific       other evidence is intro-duced, that
          policy or requirement has a signi-    party will win.
          ficantly greater impact on
          members of protected group(s)
          = prima facie case

     2.   Employer can produce evidence

          a.   To refute statistical evidence presented by plaintiff

          b.   That policy/requirement is directly related to the job

     3.   Employee has the burden of proving actual discrimination

          a.   Proof of intent to discriminate is not required, but can be
               used to rebut employer’s evidence

          b.   Proof that job-related requirements could be better (or
               equally) met by means without discriminatory impact
D.   Disparate Treatment

     1.   Plaintiff (employee, applicant, prior employee) produces
          evidence that allows conclusion that he/she received negative
          treatment due to his/her membership in protected class
          = prima facie case

     2.   Employer produces evidence that there was a valid, job-related
          reason for the treatment, e.g.
                                                         NOTE: Employer’s
          a.   Work performance (documented)             evidence can be in-
          b.   Union contract, seniority system          formation gained
          c.   Objective qualifications                  after the treatment
                                                         for which the
     3.   Plaintiff can the produce evidence that the    employee sued.
          employer’s “evidence” is really a
          “pretext” (phony reason) to cover actual
          discriminatory intent

          a.   Multiple similar acts prior to specific act charged
          b.   No other use of “reason” in similar situations
          c.   Rules that may have existed but with being enforced
          d.   Prior actions inconsistent with “reason”
D.   Discrimination based on religion gets somewhat different treatment

     1.   Negative employment action must relate to job requirements
          (if not, only “pretext”)

     2.   Employer must make a “reasonable accommodation” in light
          of the requirements of employee’s religion

          a.   “Religion” must be one that is generally recognized as such
          b.   Problem must result from a recognized requirement of that
               religion (not merely employee’s personal “thing”)

     3.   Employer NOT required to take action that would produce an
          “undue hardship” on employer, e.g.

          a.   Excusing particular employee from shift rotation that applies
               to all in his/her job category
          b.   Making extensive re-arrangements of other persons’ work
          c.   Violating safety regulations
          d.   Violating provisions of applicable union contracts

                                              NOTE that these rules are very
                                              similar to the rules applied in
                                              disability discrimination cases.
E.   Affirmative Action   ╠ p. 701 ╣

     1.   Initial interpretation of Act assumed that the act benefited only
          groups that had been previously subject to discrimination, e.g.:

               Benefited                  Not Benefited
               Non-caucasian              Caucasian
               Non-U.S. native            U.S. native
               Female                     Male
               Non-Christian              Christian

     2.   “Affirmative action” programs devised to allow particular benefits
          or considerations to help overcome effects of past discrimination

          a.   Some set particular “quotas” for increasing proportion of
               “benefited” group
          b.   Special considerations (e.g. lower requirements) for persons
               from benefited groups
          c.   “Set aside” programs for which only benefited groups qualified
3.   More-recent interpretation of Act looks at specific language of Act
     that prohibits discrimination based on stated category (race,
     religion, national origin, etc.)

     a.   Makes affirmative action programs more difficult because
          they necessarily discriminate based on a stated category

     b.   Affirmative action programs still possible if the program
          sponsor can show that it is intended to, and will, counter the
          effects of prior discrimination by the program sponsor
F.   Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) and “Business Necessity”
     ╠ p. 700 ╣

     1.   The Act expressly provides for a defense to discrimination
          cases if making the distinction is an objective requirement for
          the job

          a.   Act specifically states that “race” can never be a BFOQ

          b.   Some legitimate BFOQ situations:

               (1) Hiring a minister or priest for a religious organization

               (2) Clothing and cosmetics models (male / female)

               (3) Restroom attendants

          c.   “Customer preference” per se generally not accepted
               (e.g. airline cabin attendants [ were called “stewardesses ] )
2.   “Business Necessity” relates more to particular requirements
     of business, rather than the specific job/task

     a.   Related to objective requirements for performing the
          particular job

     b.   Can, indirectly, include customer preference

     c.   Examples:

          (1) Persons to model cosmetics (e.g. “Fashion Fair” can
              refuse to hire models with light skin color)

          (2) Women’s clothing stores can refuse to hire male
              security persons to monitor dressing room areas

     d.   Interesting questions:

          (1) Can a “gentlemen’s club” refuse to hire male dancers?
              (Guys can dance)

          (2) Can a radical-right “Nazi” bookstore refuse to hire an
              African-American clerk?
Sexual harassment cases
G.   Sexual Harassment     ╠ p. 702 ╣            demonstrate how no one can
                                                 predict how legislation might
     1.   The logic:                             be actually used. See also
                                                 RICO.
          a.   Civil Rights Act prohibits
               discrimination on the basis of “sex” with respect to “terms
               and conditions” of employment

          b.   If a female employee’s possibility for advancement depends
               on conditions not applied to males, the Act is violated
               (“Quid Pro Quo” discrimination)

          c.   If the conditions in which a female person works are substan-
               tially more stressful than male employees doing the same job,
               the act is violated (“hostile work environment”)

     2.   The term “sex” was added to the Act at the last minute in an
          attempt to defeat it --- under the conditions, not likely to work
          (No one seriously considered the ramifications of the addition)

     3.   Has created some of the more difficult problems under the Act
          (Probably inevitable – “Venus” vs. “Mars” and all that
H.   Some Procedural / Remedy Things

     1.   MUST first file complaint with EEOC within 180 days of most-
          recent act of discrimination

     2.   EEOC can choose to pursue the complaint

          a.   Usually makes some attempt at resolution
          b.   EEOC does not file very many cases, more often “disparate
               impact” cases

     3.   If EEOC does not decide within 6 months, or declines to act,
          person may bring action in state or federal court

     4.   Possible remedies:

          a.   Hiring
          b.   Back pay
          c.   Promotion
          d.   “Reasonable” attorney’s fees
          e.   Retroactive seniority
          f.   Punitive damages (maximum $300,000)
IV. Age Discrimination (1967)     ╠ p. 704 ╣

    A.   Protected Class = Employees and Applicants 40 or older

         1.   Age of person (40+) cannot be used as a reason to not hire,
              to fire, etc.

         2.   Basically same type of proof as in Title VII
              a. Person must first file complaint with EEOC
              b. Can sue if EEOC does not take case

    B.   Discrimination must be clearly based on age

         1.   Recent cases have held that dismissing higher paid workers is
              an economic decision and the fact that it has a greater impact
              on 40-and-over group does not violate the act

         2.   COMMENT: Those decisions could mostly eliminate the act
              as protection for current employees. The “logic” does not
              apply when 40+ person is competing for entry level, entry wage
              position
V.   AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (“ADA”)          ╠ p. 705 ╣

     A.   Most recent “discrimination” legislation (1990)

          1.   Intended to prevent “disabled” persons from being discriminated
               against because of preconceptions about what they can do

          2.   Requires that persons be considered for employment, and treated
               while employees, based on objective abilities

     B.   “Disabled persons” include

          1.   Persons who have, or are perceived as having, a condition which
               “a physical or mental impairment that substantially inhibits
               a major life activity”
               a. Lack of one or more senses (blind, deaf)
               b. Inability to use some parts of body (e.g. legs, arms, etc.)
               c. Mental illness
               d. “Recovered” (recovering) alcoholic or drug addict
               e. Dyslexia, AIDS, etc.

          2.   NOT: sexual disorders, homosexuality, compulsive gambling,
               practicing alcoholics or addicts
C.   Employers are required to make “reasonable accommodations” for
     disabled persons so they are not hindered by non-work problems

     1.   Accommodations need not impose “undue hardship” on employer

          a.   What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” and “undue
               hardship” are not defined

          b.   Cost is a factor, but not necessarily determinative

          c.   Physical installations (elevators, ramps, special desks, etc.)
               are usually not considered undue hardship

          d.   Completely revamping the building, office, etc. may be

     2.   The idea is that some changes in traditional arrangements are
          less important that allowing the disabled person to work

          a.   Things that are not important to doing the work can be
               adjusted so the disabled person is not prevented from doing
               what he or she is able to do

          b.   The cost is measured against an unquantifiable value of
               allowing a person to be productive

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务
假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务
假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务zcopdane
 
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDNational FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Kritsonis
 
Picture my World - Promotional slideshow
Picture my World - Promotional slideshowPicture my World - Promotional slideshow
Picture my World - Promotional slideshowCAFOD
 
Five figments of Cannes
Five figments of CannesFive figments of Cannes
Five figments of CannesJohn Shaw
 
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design Concept
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design ConceptAffitta Un Nonno_Lab Design Concept
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design ConceptCarlo Bermani
 
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구Justin Shin
 
Sudan gallery february
Sudan gallery februarySudan gallery february
Sudan gallery februaryCAFOD
 
보이스몬DS Brochure
보이스몬DS Brochure보이스몬DS Brochure
보이스몬DS BrochureJustin Shin
 
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.com
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.comRequests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.com
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.comWilliam Kritsonis
 
Southern Sudan - the challenges ahead
Southern Sudan - the challenges aheadSouthern Sudan - the challenges ahead
Southern Sudan - the challenges aheadCAFOD
 

Andere mochten auch (19)

Slideshow Elster
Slideshow ElsterSlideshow Elster
Slideshow Elster
 
假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务
假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务
假人攻击器|蚂蚁帝国假人|DDOS攻击业务|DDos业务
 
Apgres1
Apgres1Apgres1
Apgres1
 
Datorn Och Mobilen
Datorn Och MobilenDatorn Och Mobilen
Datorn Och Mobilen
 
Malediven
MaledivenMalediven
Malediven
 
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDNational FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
National FORUM Journals - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
 
Remember Me?
Remember Me?Remember Me?
Remember Me?
 
C H A P T E R 1 N O T E S
C H A P T E R 1  N O T E SC H A P T E R 1  N O T E S
C H A P T E R 1 N O T E S
 
Picture my World - Promotional slideshow
Picture my World - Promotional slideshowPicture my World - Promotional slideshow
Picture my World - Promotional slideshow
 
Five figments of Cannes
Five figments of CannesFive figments of Cannes
Five figments of Cannes
 
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design Concept
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design ConceptAffitta Un Nonno_Lab Design Concept
Affitta Un Nonno_Lab Design Concept
 
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구
국내종합병원의 웹 접근성 실태에 관한연구
 
Chaos and Character
Chaos and CharacterChaos and Character
Chaos and Character
 
ENT1 Approaching the NT
ENT1 Approaching the NTENT1 Approaching the NT
ENT1 Approaching the NT
 
Sudan gallery february
Sudan gallery februarySudan gallery february
Sudan gallery february
 
보이스몬DS Brochure
보이스몬DS Brochure보이스몬DS Brochure
보이스몬DS Brochure
 
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.com
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.comRequests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.com
Requests for information, NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - www.nationalforum.com
 
Southern Sudan - the challenges ahead
Southern Sudan - the challenges aheadSouthern Sudan - the challenges ahead
Southern Sudan - the challenges ahead
 
John Boen Farewell
John Boen FarewellJohn Boen Farewell
John Boen Farewell
 

Ähnlich wie Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Employment Law PPT.

Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDEmployment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Kritsonis
 
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhDEmployment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhDWilliam Kritsonis
 
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. KritsonisEmployment Law - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
 
The industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewThe industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewMurray Procter
 
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docx
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docxLesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docx
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docxsmile790243
 
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh BornsteinMyths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh BornsteinJosh_Bornstein
 
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh BornsteinMyths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh BornsteinMaurice Blackburn Lawyers
 
The industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewThe industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewMurray Procter
 
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docxvrickens
 
PPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvania
PPE to At-Will Employment in PennsylvaniaPPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvania
PPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvaniakrj02004
 
Chapter 18
Chapter 18Chapter 18
Chapter 18gbrand
 
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law by Dean Poquiz.pdf
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law  by Dean Poquiz.pdf2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law  by Dean Poquiz.pdf
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law by Dean Poquiz.pdfMariaKatrinaSales
 
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
 
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations laws
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations lawsOverhaul of Queensland's industrial relations laws
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations lawsMurray Procter
 
Background checks employer beware!
Background checks employer beware!Background checks employer beware!
Background checks employer beware!Janette Levey Frisch
 
Willful Patent Infringement
Willful Patent InfringementWillful Patent Infringement
Willful Patent Infringementprofberry
 
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claims
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claimsIf dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claims
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claimsSean Bawden
 
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board DecsionKrishna De
 

Ähnlich wie Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Employment Law PPT. (20)

Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhDEmployment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment law - William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
 
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhDEmployment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Employment Law - Lecture Notes William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
 
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. KritsonisEmployment Law - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
Employment Law - Dr. W.A. Kritsonis
 
Employment Law
Employment LawEmployment Law
Employment Law
 
The industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewThe industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework review
 
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docx
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docxLesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docx
Lesson Four Employer Negligence - Part I In the first thr.docx
 
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh BornsteinMyths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying By Josh Bornstein
 
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh BornsteinMyths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh Bornstein
Myths And Misconceptions About Workplace Bullying Josh Bornstein
 
The industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework reviewThe industrial relations framework review
The industrial relations framework review
 
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx
1. (TCO A) Nix has worked for ABC, Inc. for ten years. During the .docx
 
PPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvania
PPE to At-Will Employment in PennsylvaniaPPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvania
PPE to At-Will Employment in Pennsylvania
 
Chapter 18
Chapter 18Chapter 18
Chapter 18
 
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law by Dean Poquiz.pdf
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law  by Dean Poquiz.pdf2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law  by Dean Poquiz.pdf
2022 Preweek Reviewer in Labor Law by Dean Poquiz.pdf
 
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...
Workplace bullying and amendments to the fair work act josh bornstein present...
 
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations laws
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations lawsOverhaul of Queensland's industrial relations laws
Overhaul of Queensland's industrial relations laws
 
Background checks employer beware!
Background checks employer beware!Background checks employer beware!
Background checks employer beware!
 
Willful Patent Infringement
Willful Patent InfringementWillful Patent Infringement
Willful Patent Infringement
 
Cal AB 5 - CHAPTER 296
Cal AB 5 - CHAPTER 296Cal AB 5 - CHAPTER 296
Cal AB 5 - CHAPTER 296
 
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claims
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claimsIf dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claims
If dr suess wrote wrongful dismissal claims
 
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion
2012 09 07 Costco Wholesale Corporation Board Decsion
 

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis - Employment Law PPT.

  • 2. When you see a court de- cision made on a “public D. “Public Policy” Exceptions to “AT WILL” policy” basis, that usually Employment Contract ╠ p. 684 et seq. ╣ means the court does not have a clear legal rule to 1. Many court decisions have held that base its decision on, but it would be a “violation of public is doing what is “right” in policy” to allow an employer to fire the circumstances. an employee for: Usually very vague. a. Refusing to violate a law (text examples: committing perjury, indecent exposure) b. Exercising a legal right (text example: filing workmen’s comp claim), responding to OSHA, EEOC, etc. c. Performing a legal duty (jury duty, report to police, etc.) 2. “Whistleblowing” is a special category a. Reporting illegal or irregular activities of fellow employees or the company to authorities b. Is in the best interest of the public, but usually not the employer c. Probably not realistic for the employee to keep working with the employer he/she reported to authorities
  • 3. E. Tort Law – Application in Employment Setting 1. Tort law applies equally in employment setting, with exceptions a. Employee cannot sue employer for on-the-job injuries (Workers’ Comp) b. Employee might sue fellow worker, but only if unrelated to work activities (also Workers’ Comp) or intentional tort 2. Employees can sue employers for false or misleading statements made concerning job performance (usually in response to inquiry from new prospective employer) a. Employer must be careful to only provide facts that have been/can be documented (not vague accusations) b. Most employers provide very limited information c. But ex-employers may be liable for not providing relevant negative information (see Cal. case re teacher)
  • 4. 3. Employee Privacy a. Becoming a significant issue, especially with regard to employer use of “computer surveillance. b. Employer-provided email system (or Internet access) (1) Employer historically has been able to monitor work activity (A) Should that apply to personal activity while “on break” at her desk? (B) Is it reasonable to expect/allow the higher degree of scrutiny made available by computers? (2) How can the employer tell when employee is not “on the clock”? c. What off-the-job or other information should be available? (1) Drug testing (which can detect off-the-job use) (2) Evidence relating to physical condition (A) Which may affect ability to do the job (B) Which may affect health or disability insurance cost (See Gattaca)
  • 5. III. DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT (Civil Rights Act, Title VII) ╠ p. 697 ╣ A. Title VII is one part of Civil Rights Act of 1964 1. All titles of Civil Rights Act prohibit discrimination, but apply in different settings (e.g. housing, public accommodation, lending) 2. Types of discrimination and methods of proof are essentially the same 3. Title VII also applies to unions 4. Title VII does not apply to employers with very few employees (under 20?) but parallel state law applies to all B. Major Categories (for proof purposes) 1. Disparate Treatment [ “dis - PEAR – at “] Individual employee receiving differing treatment due to his/her membership in “protected class” 2. Disparate Impact Outwardly neutral requirement/rule has a significantly greater impact on persons in “protected class”
  • 6. “Prima facie” translates as C. Disparate Impact “at first face”. To say that a party has proven a prima 1. Employee (or applicant or group) facie case means that if no produces evidence that specific other evidence is intro-duced, that policy or requirement has a signi- party will win. ficantly greater impact on members of protected group(s) = prima facie case 2. Employer can produce evidence a. To refute statistical evidence presented by plaintiff b. That policy/requirement is directly related to the job 3. Employee has the burden of proving actual discrimination a. Proof of intent to discriminate is not required, but can be used to rebut employer’s evidence b. Proof that job-related requirements could be better (or equally) met by means without discriminatory impact
  • 7. D. Disparate Treatment 1. Plaintiff (employee, applicant, prior employee) produces evidence that allows conclusion that he/she received negative treatment due to his/her membership in protected class = prima facie case 2. Employer produces evidence that there was a valid, job-related reason for the treatment, e.g. NOTE: Employer’s a. Work performance (documented) evidence can be in- b. Union contract, seniority system formation gained c. Objective qualifications after the treatment for which the 3. Plaintiff can the produce evidence that the employee sued. employer’s “evidence” is really a “pretext” (phony reason) to cover actual discriminatory intent a. Multiple similar acts prior to specific act charged b. No other use of “reason” in similar situations c. Rules that may have existed but with being enforced d. Prior actions inconsistent with “reason”
  • 8. D. Discrimination based on religion gets somewhat different treatment 1. Negative employment action must relate to job requirements (if not, only “pretext”) 2. Employer must make a “reasonable accommodation” in light of the requirements of employee’s religion a. “Religion” must be one that is generally recognized as such b. Problem must result from a recognized requirement of that religion (not merely employee’s personal “thing”) 3. Employer NOT required to take action that would produce an “undue hardship” on employer, e.g. a. Excusing particular employee from shift rotation that applies to all in his/her job category b. Making extensive re-arrangements of other persons’ work c. Violating safety regulations d. Violating provisions of applicable union contracts NOTE that these rules are very similar to the rules applied in disability discrimination cases.
  • 9. E. Affirmative Action ╠ p. 701 ╣ 1. Initial interpretation of Act assumed that the act benefited only groups that had been previously subject to discrimination, e.g.: Benefited Not Benefited Non-caucasian Caucasian Non-U.S. native U.S. native Female Male Non-Christian Christian 2. “Affirmative action” programs devised to allow particular benefits or considerations to help overcome effects of past discrimination a. Some set particular “quotas” for increasing proportion of “benefited” group b. Special considerations (e.g. lower requirements) for persons from benefited groups c. “Set aside” programs for which only benefited groups qualified
  • 10. 3. More-recent interpretation of Act looks at specific language of Act that prohibits discrimination based on stated category (race, religion, national origin, etc.) a. Makes affirmative action programs more difficult because they necessarily discriminate based on a stated category b. Affirmative action programs still possible if the program sponsor can show that it is intended to, and will, counter the effects of prior discrimination by the program sponsor
  • 11. F. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) and “Business Necessity” ╠ p. 700 ╣ 1. The Act expressly provides for a defense to discrimination cases if making the distinction is an objective requirement for the job a. Act specifically states that “race” can never be a BFOQ b. Some legitimate BFOQ situations: (1) Hiring a minister or priest for a religious organization (2) Clothing and cosmetics models (male / female) (3) Restroom attendants c. “Customer preference” per se generally not accepted (e.g. airline cabin attendants [ were called “stewardesses ] )
  • 12. 2. “Business Necessity” relates more to particular requirements of business, rather than the specific job/task a. Related to objective requirements for performing the particular job b. Can, indirectly, include customer preference c. Examples: (1) Persons to model cosmetics (e.g. “Fashion Fair” can refuse to hire models with light skin color) (2) Women’s clothing stores can refuse to hire male security persons to monitor dressing room areas d. Interesting questions: (1) Can a “gentlemen’s club” refuse to hire male dancers? (Guys can dance) (2) Can a radical-right “Nazi” bookstore refuse to hire an African-American clerk?
  • 13. Sexual harassment cases G. Sexual Harassment ╠ p. 702 ╣ demonstrate how no one can predict how legislation might 1. The logic: be actually used. See also RICO. a. Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex” with respect to “terms and conditions” of employment b. If a female employee’s possibility for advancement depends on conditions not applied to males, the Act is violated (“Quid Pro Quo” discrimination) c. If the conditions in which a female person works are substan- tially more stressful than male employees doing the same job, the act is violated (“hostile work environment”) 2. The term “sex” was added to the Act at the last minute in an attempt to defeat it --- under the conditions, not likely to work (No one seriously considered the ramifications of the addition) 3. Has created some of the more difficult problems under the Act (Probably inevitable – “Venus” vs. “Mars” and all that
  • 14. H. Some Procedural / Remedy Things 1. MUST first file complaint with EEOC within 180 days of most- recent act of discrimination 2. EEOC can choose to pursue the complaint a. Usually makes some attempt at resolution b. EEOC does not file very many cases, more often “disparate impact” cases 3. If EEOC does not decide within 6 months, or declines to act, person may bring action in state or federal court 4. Possible remedies: a. Hiring b. Back pay c. Promotion d. “Reasonable” attorney’s fees e. Retroactive seniority f. Punitive damages (maximum $300,000)
  • 15. IV. Age Discrimination (1967) ╠ p. 704 ╣ A. Protected Class = Employees and Applicants 40 or older 1. Age of person (40+) cannot be used as a reason to not hire, to fire, etc. 2. Basically same type of proof as in Title VII a. Person must first file complaint with EEOC b. Can sue if EEOC does not take case B. Discrimination must be clearly based on age 1. Recent cases have held that dismissing higher paid workers is an economic decision and the fact that it has a greater impact on 40-and-over group does not violate the act 2. COMMENT: Those decisions could mostly eliminate the act as protection for current employees. The “logic” does not apply when 40+ person is competing for entry level, entry wage position
  • 16. V. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (“ADA”) ╠ p. 705 ╣ A. Most recent “discrimination” legislation (1990) 1. Intended to prevent “disabled” persons from being discriminated against because of preconceptions about what they can do 2. Requires that persons be considered for employment, and treated while employees, based on objective abilities B. “Disabled persons” include 1. Persons who have, or are perceived as having, a condition which “a physical or mental impairment that substantially inhibits a major life activity” a. Lack of one or more senses (blind, deaf) b. Inability to use some parts of body (e.g. legs, arms, etc.) c. Mental illness d. “Recovered” (recovering) alcoholic or drug addict e. Dyslexia, AIDS, etc. 2. NOT: sexual disorders, homosexuality, compulsive gambling, practicing alcoholics or addicts
  • 17. C. Employers are required to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled persons so they are not hindered by non-work problems 1. Accommodations need not impose “undue hardship” on employer a. What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” are not defined b. Cost is a factor, but not necessarily determinative c. Physical installations (elevators, ramps, special desks, etc.) are usually not considered undue hardship d. Completely revamping the building, office, etc. may be 2. The idea is that some changes in traditional arrangements are less important that allowing the disabled person to work a. Things that are not important to doing the work can be adjusted so the disabled person is not prevented from doing what he or she is able to do b. The cost is measured against an unquantifiable value of allowing a person to be productive