Texas Employment Law Update : Texas Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Russell D. Cawyer : Kelly Hart & Hallman Law Firm : Dallas TX Labor Updates

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimouslyy held that the ministerial exception bars a federal employment discrimination suit brought by a teacher challenging her church-employer's decision to terminate her employment.  While this holding is limited to religious affiliated employers, it firmly establishes the ministerial exception as a bar to certain employment discrimination claims against religious organizations.

Plaintiff Cheryl Perich was a teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran School --a school affiliated with the Lutheran Church.  The school had two kinds of teachers --lay and called teachers.  Called teachers were regarding as having been drawn to their vocation by God and had to complete certain religious academic requirements and become "Commissioned" in the Lutheran faith.  Lay teachers were not required to undergo the religious training or ordination requirements.  Moreover, lay teachers were only used when called teachers were unavailable.  Perich stated out as a lay teacher but was asked to, and agreed to become a called teacher.

Perich subsequently developed narcolepsy during the 2004-05 school year and took disability leave.  The school contracted with a substitute teacher to complete the academic year.  When Perich wanted to return to work, the school declined because it had replaced her position with the substitute.  Perich was offered  a paid continuation of her health insurance in return for her resignation. She refused the offer and instead reported to work.  When asked to leave, she refused to leave until she was provided a note confirming she had reported to work. She was later told by the principal that she would likely be fired to which she responded that she had spoken to an attorney and intended to assert her legal rights.  The school terminated her employment for insubordination and disruptive behavior as well as the damaged she allegedly caused to her relationship with the school by threatening to take legal action.

Perich filed a charge of disability discrimination and the EEOC issued a cause finding and filed suit on her behalf against the school claiming that she was fired in retaliation for threatening to file an ADA lawsuit.  The church and school defended against the disability claim arguing that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause's (i.e., the provision that precludes the government from passing any law establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion) ministerial exception prohibited the application of the ADA claim against it because it would undermine the church's decision in who become and remains a minister of the church.  The EEOC argued that the Court should not recognize a ministerial exception.  The Court rejected the Commission's arguments holding that to do so would effectively allow the government decide for the church who could act on its behalf as a minister.

Significant aspects of the case included that the teacher was ordained by the church as a minister.   While most of the duties she performed were similar to non-ordained teachers, she also taught religion class, led students in daily prayer and devotional exercises, took her students to a weekly school-wide chapel service and led the chapel service twice a year.  Both the church/school and the teacher held the teacher out as a minister with a role distinct from most of its members; her role required a significant degree of religious training and a formal process of commissioning and that her job duties reflected a role in conveying the church's message and carrying out its mission.  Because she qualified as a minister, the Court concluded that the EEOC's action challenging the decision to terminate her employment would be tantamount to dictating to the church who could and could not be a minister on the church's behalf.  As such, the ADA claim was barred by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and ministerial exception. 

The quick takeaways from the case are:

• Ministerial exception exists;
• It only applies to religious groups and organizations (although what qualifies as a religious group or organization is unclear);
• The ministerial exception does not only protect religious organizations from suits alleging religious discrimination;
• Ministerial exception applies to internal decisions of the religious organization in deciding who to select or retain as a minister;
• Ministerial exception is not limited to the head of a religious congregation but it is unclear how far the exception can be extended;
• Holding is limited to cases where minister brings an employment discrimination claim challenging a church's decision to fire her.

It will be left to the lower court's to flesh out the outer boundaries of the ministerial exception to determine who qualifies as a minister and what decisions can be said to interfere with the religious body's free exercise of religion.

You can download a full copy of the Court's opinion here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Texas has agreed to hear the case of In re Frank Kent Motor Co. d/b/a Frank Kent Cadillac, No. 10-0687.  In that case, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals denied the employer's application for writ of mandamus and refused to overrule the trial court's decision not to enforce/honor an agreement between the employer and employee to resolve all disputes in with a trial sitting without a jury (i.e., a bench trial). 

I've advocated the use of jury waivers by Texas employers because I think they can provide many of the advantages of arbitration at less cost (see posts here and here).  However, the thing I found most interesting about this case is that it involved the same agreement that only six months after the Fort Worth Appellate Court order effectively denying enforcement, the Fort Worth Appeals Court enforced by way of mandamus.  See post here.  The only meaningful differences in the two cases are the identity of the plaintiff-employee and the members of the Court that decided the two cases.  Two of the three Fort Worth Justices participated in both cases.  Justice Meiers, however, wrote the opinion conditionally granting mandamus relief and thereby effectively enforcing the agreement.  He was not on the panel that denied the application for mandamus in the case accepted by the Supreme Court.  Oral argument at the Supreme Court will be scheduled in Austin later this year and an opinion expected in the next 12 months. 

If you are a Texas employer and want to learn more about effective use of jury waiver, feel free to drop me an e-mail.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that employees, who never engaged in protected activity, can bring third-party retaliation claims against their employers when they suffer an adverse employment action due to their connection with a person who has engaged in protected activity.

The facts of Thompson v. North American Stainless are straightforward.  In February 2003 North American Stainless was advised by the EEOC that Miriam Regalado filed a sex discrimination charge of discrimination against it.  Three weeks later, Regalado's fiancee, Eric Thomas, was terminated.  Thomas filed a charge of discrimination of his own alleging that he was fired in retaliation because his fiancee filed a charge of discrimination.  The EEOC found that Thomas had been retaliated against and issued a right to sue letter when conciliation was unsuccessful.

When the case reached the trial court, the judge dismissed the suit finding that Title VII did not recognize third-party retaliation claims.  Because the case was decided on a motion to dismiss (prior to any discovery), the reviewing courts were required to take Thomas' allegation as true (i.e., that he was in-fact, terminated for his fiance's charge of discrimination).  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for a different reason.  The Sixth Circuit concluded that Thomas never engaged in protected activity because he didn't filed a charge on his or his fiance's behalf prior to his termination and therefore he couldn't bring a retaliation claim.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed.  Justice Scalia wrote, in a unanimous opinion (Kagan not participating) that the Court has little trouble concluding that if Thomas was fired because his fiancee filed a charge of discrimination, then he has a claim under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.  The Court refused, however, to provide a bright line test as to which third-parties might have a claim stating:

We expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the Burlington standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize. . .   The significance of any given act of retaliation will often depend upon the particular circumstances.

 In holding that Thompson had a claim, the Court next concluded that Thompson had standing to sue.  The Court held that a plaintiff within the zone of interest sought to be protected by Title VII (i.e., protecting employees from unlawful actions of employer), has standing to bring a claim against his employer even though the employee had not engaged in protected activity himself.  The Thompson opinion clearly expand the scope of potential plaintiffs that can bring claims against their employers regardless of whether or not they engage in protected activity.

You can read the full opinion here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In one of the most anticipated employment discrimination cases in years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the City of New Haven discriminated against non-minority firefighters when it chose to ignore the test results of a racially-neutral promotional exam because too few minorities scored high enough on the test to be considered for promotion.  I previously wrote about this case and outlined its facts.  (See here for post).

In Ricci v. DeStafano, a majority of the Supreme Court began with the premise that the City's decision to ignore the results of its promotional testing because too few minority fire fighters scored well on the test, constituted intentional discrimination against the firefighters that scored well on the test.  There was no dispute that the City disregarded the test results because of the race of the test takers and the fact that no minorities scored high enough to qualify for promotion.  Concluding that this conduct constituted intentional discrimination, the Court examined whether the City had a legitimate justification for ignoring the test results. 

The City's sole justification for the ignoring the test results was that if it recognized the results it would face litigation from the minority firefighters who took, and scored poorly, on the test.  The minority firefighters, the City predicted, would sue the City claiming that the racially-neutral test had a disparate impact on minority firefighters and therefore discriminated against them.  The City argued that it was faced with a Hobson's choice where no matter what it elected to do it would be faced with a discrimination lawsuit (i.e., either being sued by the white firefighters who scored well and were denied promotional opportunities because the test results were ignored or by the minority firefighters who claimed the test unintentionally discriminated against them by recognizing a test that had a disparate impact on minorities).

The Court explained that if the City had a "strong basis in evidence" that its recognition of the test results would subject it to disparate-impact liability in the absence of it taking the race-conscious, discriminatory action --not necessarily that it would lose an disparate impact case.  To make this showing, there would need to be a showing of a significant statistical disparity; and the tests were no job related and consistent with business necessity; or there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served the City's needs that it refused to adopt.  Applying this standard to the Ricci case, the Court concluded that City lacked a strong basis in evidence that it would be subjected to disparate-impact liability if it recognized the test results.  Therefore, it found that City discriminated against the non-minority firefighters when it threw out the test results.    

The lesson from Ricci is that when an employer is faced with qualification or promotional exam that may have a disparate impact on a protected class, the employer must build a strong record and attempt to ferret out the reasons for the disparity before deciding whether to ignore the results.  A strong case would begin with a test that was designed in such a way as to avoid a disparate impact as was the case in Ricci.  The Court's opinion makes clear that it is not intended to prohibit an employer from considering (before test administration) a way to design a test that provides a fair opportunity for all individuals, regardless of their race.  Instead, the legal analysis encourages employers (and gives them broad latitude) at the test-design phase to invite comments to ensure the test is fair.  This would tend to help to identify aspects of the prospective test that might not be job-related and consistent with business necessity or other equally effective, less discriminatory alternatives.  

With a strong record in this regard, an employer assert and prevail with the new defense announced by the Ricci court when it faced with the prospect of being sued for disparate treatment (i.e., intentional) or disparate impact (i.e., unintentional) discrimination.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that provisions in collective bargaining agreements that clearly and unmistakably require union members to submit statutory discrimination claims to the grievance and dispute resolution provisions of the agreement are binding and enforceable. 

In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett ,  a dispute arose over a commercial office building's reassignment of night watchmen employees (whose duties were outsourced) to less desirable positions such as light duty cleaners and porters.  The reassigned employees, members of the Service Employee International Union, Local 32BJ, filed a grievance with the union contending that the reassignments violated, among other things, the CBA's ban on age discrimination.  When the grievances were unsuccessful, the Union requested arbitration under the dispute resolution procedures of the CBA.  The union later withdrew the grievances to the extent they complained about age discrimination prohibited by the contract but continued to press for arbitration on the remaining claims.

The disgruntled reassigned employees then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC over their reassignment claiming the reassignments were discriminatory.   After the EEOC issued a right to sue letter and the employees sued in federal district court, the defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration relying on the language of the grievance and dispute resolution procedures of the CBA with the union that stated:

§ 30 NO DISCRIMINATION. There shall be no discrimination against any present or future employee by reason of race, creed, color, age, disability, national origin, sex, union membership, or any other characteristic protected by law, including, but not limited to, claims made pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Code, . . . or any other similar laws, rules, or regulations. All such claims shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures (Articles V and VI) as the sole and exclusive remedy for violations. Arbitrators shall apply appropriate law in rendering decisions based upon claims of discrimination.

The trial court and Second Circuit Court of Appeal refused to compel arbitration holding that a CBA could not waive the bargaining unit members' right to a judicial forum over statutory civil rights claims created by Congress.

The Supreme Court reversed holding that where the intent to submit statutory discrimination claims to the grievance and dispute resolution procedures of the CBA is clear and unmistakable (an issue that was not in dispute before the court --i.e., the parties agreed that the language was sufficiently explicit) nothing precluded the union's ability to waive its members right to a judicial forum to resolve those discrimination claims.  A majority of the Court rejected the employee's argument that the union was waiving important, substantive rights to be free from age discrimination. 

The Court noted that the union had not waived (nor could it) the employee's right to be free from and to challenge employment actions that were based on unlawful motivations such as age discrimination.  Rather, the Court observed, the Union had merely negotiated for and agreed that such claims would be resolved in a forum other than a judicial one --i.e., arbitration.  Consequently, the Court held that to the extent the employees were to litigate their statutory age discrimination claims they would have to do so within the confines of the grievance and dispute resolution procedures of the CBA.

As a consequence of this ruling it is unlikely that unions will agree in future negotiations that their grievance and arbitration procedures include employment discrimination and civil rights claims.  Placing the unions in the position of using limited resources to arbitrate otherwise individual claims is unlikely to be something that benefits the majority of the bargaining unit members.  This potential conflict of interest is something most unions would prefer to avoid. 

Other commentators have suggested, and I agree, that the holding of this case is likely to be limited because Congress may seek to overturn it as it did with the Court's Ledbetter decision.  See Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer and The Delaware Employment Law Blog . 

Another potential consequence is that the existence of a mandatory arbitration provision in a CBA covering employment discrimination claims may be an important factor the EEOC considers in deciding whether to litigate over a particular charge of discrimination.  Under the current law the EEOC is not be bound by the grievance and arbitration provisions in CBA's (nor individual employment contracts between employees and employers) and it could vindicate an employee's rights in a federal judicial forum notwithstanding the CBA.

Until legislation is passed to overturn 14 Penn Plaza, employers and unions with CBAs that clearly and unmistakably include employment discrimination and civil rights claims in the grievance and dispute resolution provisions will now be forced to resolve those disputes in an arbitral forum.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link