New Jersey Employment Lawyer Blog

Under the "cat's paw" theory, a company can be held liable for discrimination based on the discriminatory intent of an employee who influenced an employment decision, even if the person who actually made the decision did not discriminate. Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Court Circuit applied the cat's paw theory and ruled a decision to fire an employee was retaliatory even though it was made by a disciplinary review board that did not intend to retaliate against the employee since the review process began as a result of retaliation. The Third Circuit is the federal appellate court that handles appeals from New Jersey. As I discussed in previous articles, earlier this year the United States Supreme Court adopted the "cat's paw" theory in federal cases, and the New Jersey Appellate Division adopted the cat's paw theory in November 2008.

In McKenna v. City of Philadelphia, three police officers sued the Philadelphia Police Department for retaliating against them because they objected to the fact that the Department was discriminating against African-American police officers. One of those Officers, Raymond Carnation, claimed he was assigned to work alone in dangerous neighborhoods in the rain and cold in retaliation for his objections to the race discrimination, and that Police Captain William Colarulo threatened to make his life "a living nightmare" if he filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Eventually, the Department brought disciplinary charges of insubordination against Officer Carnation, supposedly based on verbal altercation with Captain Colarulo. The disciplinary charges were referred to the Police Board of Inquiry ("PBI"), a board that investigates disciplinary charges against members of the Police Department and recommends the appropriate discipline.

The PBI found Officer Carnation guilty of the charges against him, and recommended that the City should fire him. The Police Commissioner agreed with that recommendation, and the City fired Officer Carnation.

After a trial in the civil lawsuit, a jury found in favor of all three of the police officers, including Officer Carnation, concluding the City had retaliated against them in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the jury found that Officer Carnation's objections to race discrimination was a factor that motivated the Department's decision to fire him.

One of the primary issues on the appeal to the Third Circuit was whether the City could be held liable for retaliating against Officer Carnation even though the decision to fire him was made by the PBI and the Police Commissioner, neither of which had any intention of retaliating against him. The Court explained that an employer can be held liable for retaliation if there is a direct and substantial relation between the retaliatory action and the harm it caused the employee, as long as the link is not "too remote or indirect." Based on the facts, it concluded that it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Captain Colarulo's retaliatory intent had a direct and substantial relation to Officer Carnation being fired, since his actions led to the PBI's investigation. As a result, it upheld the jury's verdict in favor of Officer Carnation.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Rules Employer Can Be Liable if Supervisor's Discrimination Influenced Disciplinary Hearing" »

Yesterday, a federal Judge in Manhattan dismissed a class action claim from a gender and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had filed against Bloomberg L.P. In the case, the EEOC alleged that Bloomberg had engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination against pregnant employees and female employees upon their return from maternity leaves. Judge Loretta A. Preska, the Chief Justice of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the class action claim because she found the EEOC had not presented enough evidence to prove a pattern and practice of gender or pregnancy discrimination.

A pattern and practice case is when a group of employees claim a company has a broad practice or systemic pattern of unlawful discrimination. In this instance, the EEOC filed the lawsuit on behalf of female employees who claimed Bloomberg had demoted them, lowered their salaries, reduced the number of employees reporting to them, took away some of their job responsibilities, excluded them from meetings, and/or otherwise subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers. In addition to the three plaintiffs named in the original lawsuit, 78 other women had joined the case, for a total of 81 class members.

In her 64-page opinion in EEOC v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Preska explained that ordinarily employees have to prove a pattern and practice of discrimination with a combination of statistical and anecdotal evidence of discrimination, to show the discrimination was part of a company-wide pattern or practice. She indicated that it is unusual that anecdotal evidence alone can prove a pattern or practice of discrimination, especially at a large company like Bloomberg, which employs more than 10,000 employees.

However, the EEOC apparently did not have any statistical evidence to support its claim. It also did not have any direct evidence of discrimination, or any evidence of an explicitly discriminatory policy. Instead, it tried to rely only on anecdotal evidence of discrimination. This evidence included the fact that nearly every one of the class members claimed that Bloomberg had decreased her compensation, job responsibilities and/or number of direct reports, either after she became pregnant or after she returned from her maternity leave.

In contrast, Bloomberg had at least two expert witnesses who concluded that there was no pattern or practice of discrimination at the company. Specifically, one of Bloomberg's expert witnesses, Dr. Michael Ward, used statistics to conclude that class members actually received higher average compensation than non-class members. He also found no significant differences between the raises class members received versus non-class members. Another expert for Bloomberg, Dr. John Johnson, concluded that the class members actually received nearly better raises after maternity leaves than employees who took time off for other reasons.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that while there might be some individual cases of pregnancy and gender discrimination at Bloomberg, the EEOC did not have enough evidence to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination. Accordingly, Judge Preska dismissed the class action from the case. However, the EEOC has indicated that it intends to continue to pursue the individual claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs.

Continue reading "New York Judge Dismisses Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Against Bloomberg L.P." »

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided a case with an important lesson for employees requesting time off due to a disability, and the employment law attorneys who represent them. Specifically, in Prigge v. Sears Holding Corp., the Third Circuit dismissed an employee's disability discrimination case on the basis that the employee was fired for failing to provide all of information his employer requested about his medical absences, and lied to the company about his disability. The Third Circuit is the federal court that handles appeals from the District of New Jersey.

John Prigge worked for Sears Holding Corp., as a store coach, from April 2007 through February 2008. Mr. Prigge was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He began feeling ill in December 2007, and took at least two days off from work and had to leave work early on several other occasions. However, he lied to his supervisors by claiming he needed the time off for radiation treatment due to a recurrence of his prostate cancer.

Mr. Prigge was subsequently hospitalized for a week in late January 2008 because his depression had gotten worse and he was having suicidal thoughts. When he was released from the hospital, he contacted his supervisor and told him he had been absent because he suffers from bipolar disorder and had been at a mental health hospital. Mr. Prigge's boss told him he could not return to work until he submitted doctor's notes from both the hospital and the physician who had treated his prostate cancer. The next day, Mr. Prigge admitted to his boss that he had not actually undergone prostate cancer treatment in December 2007 or January 2008.

When Mr. Prigge submitted the two doctor's notes that his boss had requested, his boss told him he could return to work on February 11, 2008. However, when Mr. Prigge returned to work as scheduled, the company sent him home and told him he needed to submit additional medical certifications. Mr. Prigge subsequently received a warning letter from Sears saying he had not provided medical releases explaining all of his unexcused absences. However, Mr. Prigge did not submit the additional certification Sears had requested. Accordingly, on February 26, 2008, Sears fired him.

Mr. Prigge then sued Sears, claiming it fired him in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and state law. The trial court dismissed his case in its entirety. He then appealed his disability discrimination claim to the Third Circuit. In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Prigge's case because he admitted he had not submitted all of the doctor's notes Sears had requested. The court also noted that Sears had the right to fire him for lying about the reason he needed time off in December 2007.

The Prigge decision is unpublished, so it is not a binding legal precedent. However, it highlights some of the potential dangers employees face when they ask for time off or other reasonable accommodations for a disability. For example, employees are often caught between the risks of (1) disclosing too much information about their medical conditions, and losing their medical privacy and risking harassment or retaliation because of their disability, and (2) providing false or incomplete information, and either having their requests denied or getting disciplined or fired as a result.

Deciding how much information to provide your company about your disability can be a very difficult and important decision. That is especially true if your disability is a mental illness, or another medical condition that is misunderstood or may carry a stigma. As a result, it can be extremely important to speak to an experienced employment lawyer before you request time off from work or ask for another reasonable accommodation for a disability.