NH Court Extends Liability for Sexual Harassment

February 29, 2016 by Leave a Comment

working.oldtypewriterA somewhat  notorious case that illustrates the difficulty of holding sexual harassers to account is in the news again..

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled this month that an employee can be held liable for “aiding and abetting an unlawfully discriminatory practice committed by an employer” under the state’s anti-discrimination statute (RSA 354-A:2).

The ruling came in a case involving Fuller Oil Co. of Hudson, N.H. and its owner Frederick J. Fuller.

The company settled an EEOC sexual harassment complaint (without admitting liability) in 2005 by agreeing to pay five women a total of $750,000 and to institute company wide training in sexual harassment prevention. At the time, an EEOC official characterized Mr. Fuller as a “serial” sexual harasser.

In 2013, another EEOC sexual harassment complaint was filed charging Fuller with forcing office worker Nicole Wilkins to quit in 2011 when he allegedly grabbed and squeezed both of her breasts from behind while pinning her against her desk. The EEOC said the alleged assault was the culmination of a growing number of unwanted and inappropriate sexual comments and incidents of touching by Fuller. After Wilkins threatened to file an EEOC complaint, Fuller allegedly retaliated by firing Wilkins’ friend and co-worker, Beverly Mulcahey, for poor performance.

Fuller was subsequently arrested for the incident but settled that case by pleading no contest to a reduced charge of simple assault.

The company apparently refused to settle that case so the EEOC in 2014 filed a lawsuit charging both the company and Fuller with sexual harassment and retaliation. Fuller sought unsuccessfully to dismiss the case on the grounds that his behavior amounted to a single crude gesture and was not objectively offensive. The oil and propane company went bankrupt, which had the effect of staying the lawsuit against the company. Fuller’s attorney then argued that Fuller could not personally be held liable under New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination law for either sexual harassment or retaliation. A U.S. District Court judge asked New Hampshire’s highest court to interpret the state’s anti-discrimination law and decide whether it permits an individual employee to be held liable for aiding and abetting employment discrimination and  retaliation by the employer. New Hampshire’s high court answered “yes” this month.

The New Hampshire court noted the anti-discrimination law  provides that “any act of aiding, abetting, inciting, compelling or coercing another to commit an unlawful discriminatory practice, or attempting to do so, or obstructing or preventing any person from complying with the [law] is itself an unlawful discriminatory practice.”  The Court ruled that absolving individual employees from liability for aiding and abetting employment discrimination is “plainly inconsistent with the stated intent” of the law, which is to “eliminate and prevent discrimination in employment.” Furthermore, the court said individual employees can be held liable for retaliation.

The N.H. high court’s ruling permits Wilkins and Mulcahey to seek monetary damages from Fuller individually for aiding and abetting his former company’s alleged unlawful acts.

 

New Hampshire court adds ominous side note – state’s anti-discrimination law exempts employers with six workers or less.

The N.H. court’s ruling contains an ominous side note. The court noted that New Hampshire’s anti-discrimination law only applies to employers with six or more employees. The court said it is only logical to conclude that if an employer is exempt from the law, individual employees of the employer also are exempt from liability.  So God help workers who work for a New Hampshire company with fewer than six employees.

The case is U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al. v. Fred Fuller Oil Company, et al., Case No. 2015-0258 (Feb. 23, 2016).

Filed Under: SEXUAL HARASSMENT, STATE Tagged With:

Discrimination Victims Deserve REAL Justice

February 15, 2016 by 1 Comment

The EEOC has asked for public input so here goes:

Why is the EEOC operating the equivalent of a “get out of jail free card” for employers that engage in employment discrimination and retaliation?

When the EEOC determines there is reasonable cause for a charge of discrimination, the agency offers the employer (and the victim) the opportunity to participate in its free mediation program, where a neutral mediator assists the parties in reaching an early and confidential  resolution to a charge of discrimination.

In its 2014 performance report, the EEOC contends the mediation program is a “win for both Employees and Employers” but in the final analysis it is a much bigger win for employers.

The EEOC says its mediation program for private sector complainants  achieved a resolution in 7,846 out of a total of 10,221 mediations conducted for all types of discrimination.  The effort yielded $144.6 million in monetary benefits for complainants. Simple division indicates the EEOC’s mediation effort yielded $18,430 per mediation for private sector workers in 2014.

A payout of less than $20,000 per mediation is a bona fide windfall for employers, who might otherwise be forced to spend a hundred thousands dollars or more to defend a lawsuit, plus a potentially staggering damages award.

But $20,000 is a pittance at best for many – if not most – victims of employment discrimination – especially those who lost their jobs or who were not hired because of illegal discrimination.

There’s the rub

The EEOC is not supposed to be in the business of protecting discriminatory employers from the reasonable consequences of their harmful actions. [Read more…]

Filed Under: AGE DISCRIMINATION, CULTURE, EEOC, EMPLOYERS, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TITLE VII Tagged With:

Appeals Court Puts Judge on Hot Seat in Trucking Case

December 30, 2014 by 1 Comment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has rejected an order requiring the EEOC to pay $4.7 million in attorney fees and costs  to CRST Van Expedited, Inc., one of the nation’s leading transport companies, in an egregious sexual harassment case involving female truck driver trainees.

This lawsuit, perhaps more than any other in recent history, demonstrates the extent to which federal courts have moved away from the worthy goal of addressing serious employment discrimination to engaging in pro-business partisanship, sweeping generalizations and moronic procedural disputes.  It also raises questions about whether the EEOC, in the current environment, can actually carry out its goal of promoting  more strategic use of agency resources by emphasizing high stakes litigation involving multiple victims.

At various points, Chief Judge Linda R. Reade of the U.S. District Court of Iowa dismissed all of the 154 plaintiffs in the EEOC case and  ruled the agency  must pay CRST, one of the nation’s leading transport company, a whopping $4.7 million in attorneys’ fees and costs.

The 8th Circuit’s ruling constitutes a step in the right direction. The appeals court remanded the case back to the district court with instructions to reassess the attorney’s fee award. Among other things, the appeals court is asking Reade to explain why she dismissed dozens of sexual harassment claims as frivolous, unreasonable or ungrounded.  Moreover, the Court rejected Reade’s award of attorney fees with respect to 67 claimants whom Reade dismissed from the case under a controversial ‘failure to conciliate” theory.

Several federal circuits have ruled the EEOC must engage in individual conciliation or negotiations with an employer with respect to each and every claim in a class action lawsuit, even if the employer has indicated no willingness to settle.  This requirement allows guilty employers to delay adjudicting the issue of discrimination, constitutes a colossal waste of  EEOC resources, and ultimately severely limits the agency’s ability to file class action employment discrimination lawsuits.

Reade dismissed  67 potential class members from the CRST lawsuit on the grounds that the EEOC failed to engage in  “bona fide” conciliation efforts with CRST. She did not even consider the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, some of which involved shocking allegations of sexual harassment and abuse lodged by female truck driver trainees who were stranded in isolated conditions on the road.  These women alleged that CRST did little or nothing in response to their complaints.

The 8th Circuit ruled that the EEOC’s duty to conciliate does not constitute an element of a claim. Therefore, the appeals court said , the EEOC didn’t lose those 67 claims and the CRST was not a prevailing party with respect to those claims.  The appeals court concluded that CRST is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees for the claims dismissed under the “failure to conciliate” theory.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, EEOC, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TITLE VII Tagged With: ,

Company Liable for Lovestruck HR Director

May 30, 2014 by 2 Comments

A federal appeals court in Puerto Rico has rejected the narrow limitations imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court on who is considered to be a “supervisor” in employment discrimination cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that Developers Diversified Realty Corp (DDR) can be held liable for sexual harassment by Rosa Martinez, an HR officer for the company, who engineered the ouster of Antonio Velázquez-Pérez, a company regional general manager, after he rebuffed her advances.

Both Martinez and Velázquez worked in the Puerto Rico offices of DDR, a shopping center management company based in Ohio.

In its ruling , the appeals court acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court last year limited employer liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in cases where a non-supervisor causes a discriminatory action. Martinez was not Velázquez’ supervisor.  However, the 1st Circuit court said, DDR should have known that Martinez’s recommendation that Velázquez be fired was the product of discriminatory animus and therefore can be held liable under Title VII for negligently allowing Martinez to cause Velázquez’s termination.

Noting the case presented issues that it had not addressed previously. the appeals court concluded that an employer can be held liable if  the co-worker acted for discriminatory reasons with the intent to cause the plaintiff’s firing; the co-worker’s actions were in fact the proximate cause of the termination; and the employer allowed the co-worker’s acts to achieve their desired effect though it knew (or reasonably should have known) of the discriminatory motivation.

The Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Velázquez’s claim of sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII.

According the  opinion, Velázquez and Martinez had mutually flirted with each other when they both went to a company meeting in April 2008 and stayed at the same hotel. That night, Velázquez was walking with two female employees of the company when Martinez appeared in their path and asked where they were going.  Martinez followed Velázquez to his room,  tried to force her way in and refused to leave until Velázquez threatened to call security.  She then telephoned hm several times and sent a jealous email to one of the women that he had been walking with.  Shortly thereafter, Martinez threatened to have Velázquez fired, stating, “I don’t have to take revenge on anyone; if somebody knows your professional weaknesses, that person is me.”

Velázquez complained about Martinez’s behavior to his supervisor, who advised him to send her a “conciliatory” email because “[s]he’s going to get you terminated.” He and another male employee then jokingly suggested that Velázquez have sex with Martinez.

Martinez began a campaign of harsh criticism of Velázquez’s work, culminating with a recommendation that he be terminated. The top company official in Puerto Rico suggested that instead of termination Velázquez be issued a formal warning and placed on a Performance Improvement Plan.  Martinez went over his head and complained to two senior officials at the company’s headquarters in Ohio.

Meanwhile, Velázquez and Martinez went to another business meeting and stayed at the same hotel.  This time Martinez followed Velázquez into an elevator and said  she loved him and “wanted to have a romantic relationship with him.” Velázquez refused. That night, Martinez sent an email to the Ohio officials recommending that Velázquez be terminated immediately “because his behavior has been against the company code of conduct and has already impacted the trust form other team members.”

Four days later, on August 25, 2008, Velázquez was terminated for “[a]bsenteeism,” “[f]ailure to report,” and “[u]nsatisfactory performance.”

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, FEDERAL, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TITLE VII Tagged With: , , , , ,