Tenth Circuit rules ADA failure to accommodate claims must prove adverse employment action

This month the federal Tenth Circuit held in Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado that a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA must prove an adverse employment action. In a 2-1 decision exploring the divide among federal circuits the majority came down in favor of the employer, extending defensive opportunities to this form of disability discrimination claim. Eventually this issue may rise to the Supreme Court but for now Colorado employees are subject to the explicit holding by the Tenth Circuit in this case.

The facts in Exby-Stolley v. Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado

Ms. Exby-Stolley was a health inspector for Weld County, Colorado. She suffered a broken arm which made it difficult for her to perform her normal job duties. The parties disagree over the facts that follow.

The plaintiff alleged this set of events. She received a poor evaluation for being behind in work. After disclosing her physical condition she met with her supervisors and human resources. The parties agreed to transition her to part time office work. The pay difference in work hours was made up by workers compensation. After this first meeting, her supervisors’ manager asked plaintiff why she did not take disability and expressed anger that she would not. Eventually plaintiff grew dissatisfied with the part time position and requested a second meeting. At this meeting all of plaintiff’s proposed accommodations were rejected. At the end of the meeting her supervisors’ manager talked to her and plaintiff understood the conversation to mean she needed to resign. Plaintiff met with human resources and looked at other job opportunities and long term disability. Days later, plaintiff sent an email to colleagues announcing her resignation because she could not perform her job duties.

Weld County, Colorado alleged similar events with some key differences. The employer alleged at the second meeting plaintiff requested a job should be created for her out of the job duties she could do and that she could not perform all of the normal job duties of her position. Nobody recalled discussing resignation. Instead, no final decision had been made and the defendant expected to continue the interactive process to accommodate her disability.

At the conclusion of a five day trial the jury sided with the employer. Plaintiff appealed that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that she had to prove she suffered an adverse employment action.

Adverse employment actions and failure to accommodate under the ADA

The appellate court wrestled with whether a failure to accommodate claim under the ADA requires the plaintiff to prove she suffered an adverse employment action. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer has a duty to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability. Failure to provide a reasonable accommodation violates the statute and creates a claim for disability discrimination. Federal circuits disagree whether the failure to accommodate is itself a discriminatory act or whether an adverse employment action must follow the failure to accommodate.

An adverse employment action in employment discrimination law is a serious and material change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. The meaning of this term is well analyzed in employment discrimination law. Whether an employer’s act qualifies as an adverse employment action is fact specific and may be a disputed issue in the course of litigation.

Disability discrimination claims in Colorado

The majority opinion holds an adverse employment action must follow the failure to accommodate

The majority rests its position primarily upon analogizing failure to accommodate claims to disparate treatment claims under the ADA and other federal employment discrimination statutes. The majority fills in the ADA statutory language with analogies to Title VII and case law to assert the statute requires proof of an adverse employment action. It indicates the McDonnell-Douglas framework must be modified to omit the requirement that the employee show he or she was treated less favorably than a non-disabled employee because the failure to accommodate is a discriminatory act under the statute.

The majority spends little to no space explaining why its position is correct; instead it devotes time to explaining that it is correct (and why the dissent is wrong) and that the McDonnell-Douglas framework is appropriately flexible to apply here. The majority fails to draw a compelling case why a failure to accommodate claim is sufficiently indistinguishable from a disparate treatment claim or why a failure to accommodate is not itself an adverse employment action.

The majority dismisses contrary case law with much hand-waiving. It dismisses the dissent’s position that prior Tenth Circuit case law disagrees with the majority by insisting opposing prior case law consists of non-binding dicta and crafts alternative explanations for non-dicta contentions. It provides similar machinations to explain away other circuit disagreement. It instead points to cases from the First, Second, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth circuits as agreement with its position.

The dissent

The dissent alternatively distinguishes between failure to accommodate claims from disparate treatment claims. The dissenting judge asserts failure to accommodate are uniquely different types of claims in which the failure to accommodate serves as an adverse act by itself. The dissent relies upon prior Tenth Circuit opinions distinguishing the two types of claims in addition to agreeing circuits of the Third, Fifth and Seventh.

While the dissent raises a less tortured analysis of binding and persuasive precedent, it also fails to make a compelling case why not requiring an additional adverse employment action makes sense within the objectives of the ADA. It makes more sense for the dissent to draw a brief argument that binding precedent requires an alternative result to the majority; however, an argument why precedent is correct certainly could have helped.

Where Colorado employees go from here

Until the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court revisits this opinion, employees in the Tenth Circuit are stuck following the majority’s position here. It’s unknown whether the plaintiff will request a rehearing en banc to let the entire court hear the case or ask the Supreme Court to weigh in. The apparent circuit split on this issue will almost certainly be addressed by the Supreme Court at some point soon but that may be years away.

The biggest problem with the majority’s position is that it forces disabled employees who are denied reasonable accommodations to endure the absence of an accommodation until the problem compounds into something a court might agree is an adverse employment action. In between the failure to accommodate and the adverse employment action, disabled employees are likely to fall behind at work and generate a less favorable reputation for his or her work that will not be cured simply by remedying an adverse employment action. The long term implications go far beyond the immediate adverse employment action. The mere refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation in many cases results in a less favorable employment situation than the disabled employee’s able colleagues. That is the type of discriminatory impact laws like the ADA were enacted to combat.

From a litigation standpoint the majority’s position makes cases more difficult for employees. Requiring the employee to prove an adverse employment action gives employers two additional defensive opportunities. First, employers obtain the opportunity to assert the alleged adverse act fails to meet the legal threshold to qualify as an adverse employment action. This helps employers in close cases where the adverse act is less obvious, like a termination. Second, it gives employers the opportunity to allege the adverse employment action occurred due to a non-discriminatory reason. That puts employees in the strange position to argue the employee underperforms and every possible reason for underperformance relates to the unaccommodated disability.

Pursuing failure to accommodate claims with Denver employment lawyers

The decision in Exby-Stolley will make pursuing failure to accommodate claims under the ADA more difficult and more necessary to hire a Denver employment lawyer to represent you. Employees with failure to accommodate claims will have to look closely at what adverse employment action occurred and properly allege it in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs may allege under the ADA that the failure to accommodate deprived the employee of enjoyment of the benefits of employment as an adverse employment action but it is not yet clear how the Tenth Circuit will treat those arguments. Each of these claims must be carefully reviewed and alleged from the administrative charge through filing a lawsuit.

Experienced employment lawyers in Denver, Colorado can make it an even battle on your behalf. If you believe your employer failed to reasonably accommodate a disability then you should talk to a Denver employment lawyer right away. What you do from the beginning may help avoid a difficult situation at work or help prepare a strong case from the outset. You also may need to begin work on your case right away due to time limitations under the ADA and state law. Failure to act properly within these time limits may impair your ability to pursue a meritorious case. Talk to Denver employment lawyers about your workplace situation right away.

 

EEOC or Hiring a Lawyer: When Do You Need an Attorney for Job Discrimination in Colorado?

Do you need an attorney for job discrimination in Colorado or should you rely on the EEOC to represent your interests? Employees who suffer discrimination on the job in Colorado likely have never had to deal with the EEOC or hire an employment discrimination lawyer in Denver. Learn more about when you may want to talk to an EEOC lawyer and when you do not have to work with the EEOC. This post will discuss:

  • The EEOC process;
  • When you must follow the EEOC process;
  • When you do not have to follow the EEOC process;
  • What an attorney for job discrimination can do for you; and
  • When you may want to talk to an attorney.

Employees in Denver and other parts of Colorado may have alternative procedures and remedies under state anti-discrimination law and we will touch on that issue as well; however, the primary focus of this post will be the EEOC process and federal employment discrimination remedies.

Most job discrimination claims in Colorado must go to the EEOC

If you believe you suffered job discrimination and need an attorney you need to know that many federal civil rights laws require you to first file a complaint with the EEOC before you can file a federal lawsuit. Most federal employment discrimination laws require you to file a complaint with the EEOC called a charge of discrimination. After filing your charge of discrimination, EEOC investigators will investigate and you likely will proceed through an informal settlement process.

If your complaint does not settle then you will either have the opportunity to have your case heard by an administrative law judge or file a lawsuit in court. The EEOC investigator may tell you that you do not need to hire an attorney for job discrimination; but that may result in missing options in your employment discrimination or hostile work environment claims.

EEOC Lawyer

Why you may want to talk to an attorney for job discrimination in Colorado first

You can file a complaint with the EEOC without hiring an attorney for job discrimination. The EEOC intake process for complaints is designed to allow workers to report discrimination on the job without an attorney. However, you may want to schedule a consultation or hire an attorney for job discrimination before filing your EEOC complaint. Your attorney for job discrimination may encourage you to follow the EEOC process. A lawyer can advise you how to proceed through the process and what to include in your complaint. Anything you leave out of an EEOC complaint likely cannot be pursued later so it is important to present a strong EEOC complaint.

Additionally, Colorado has its own state remedies for job discrimination. Colorado state law (C.R.S. 24-34-401 et seq) creates its own framework for dealing with job discrimination. C.R.S. 24-34-401 et seq. provides state law remedies for job discrimination broader than some federal anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado employment law also empowers the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment to receive charges of discrimination. The state agency can investigate and pursue claims of job discrimination. Colorado employment lawyers can advise you whether you should pursue your claims under federal or state law and with which agency to file your charge.

Employment discrimination lawyer Denver

When you can go straight to court under federal discrimination law

Most job discrimination laws require you to exhaust your administrative remedies through the EEOC or a state discrimination agency before you can file a lawsuit. Two federal employment laws do not require you to exhaust remedies before filing a lawsuit:

  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act
  • Equal Pay Act

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of age against workers over forty. It requires employees to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC but does not require the worker to receive a Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC before filing a federal lawsuit. The worker must file suit, if desired, no earlier than sixty days after filing the charge of discrimination and no later than the ninetieth day after the EEOC concludes its investigation.

The Equal Pay Act prohibits discrimination in compensation between men and women. It does not require workers to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or receive a Right to Sue Letter before filing a lawsuit. Note that an employee may have sex discrimination claims under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which does require filing a complaint with the EEOC. Before deciding not to file a complaint with the EEOC you should talk to an attorney for job discrimination. If you have potential claims under both statutes and do not file a charge of discrimination and lose on your Equal Pay Act claim you may not be able to file a claim for the same discriminatory acts under Title VII. A lawyer familiar with the EEOC and anti-discrimination statutes can help you assess the best course of action.

When you can opt out of EEOC involvement in your Colorado job discrimination claim

You may be required by federal employment law to begin your job discrimination claim with an EEOC complaint. However, you do not have to keep your discrimination claim with the EEOC. You have the option under anti-discrimination laws to quit the EEOC administrative process and file a private lawsuit if one or more conditions are true. These include:

  • The agency has not responded with a decision within 180 days and no appeal has been filed on the complaint;
  • The EEOC issued a determination and neither employer or employee filed an appeal;
  • The EEOC does not respond to your appeal or the employer’s appeal with a determination within 180 days; and
  • You do not agree with the EEOC’s conclusion on your appeal.

The EEOC may choose not to pursue your charge of discrimination and issue a “Notice of Right to Sue” to you. If you receive a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC then you should talk to an attorney for job discrimination right away.

attorney for job discrimination in Colorado

Note that should you decide to pursue a private lawsuit you must do so within ninety days of the EEOC:

  • Issuing a decision and no appeal is filed;
  • Issuing a decision on an appeal to its initial decision; or
  • Declining to pursue your charge of discrimination and issuing a Notice of Right to Sue.

If you fail to file a private lawsuit within this limitations period then you may be barred from pursuing your claims in court. Therefore, it is vital that you talk to an attorney for job discrimination–if you haven’t hired one already–about your options. Waiting to talk to an employment lawyer or filing a lawsuit can be fatal to your discrimination claims.

Hiring a lawyer in federal court or go to the EEOC with your Colorado job discrimination claims

Often the EEOC administrative process will not result in a satisfactory resolution through its settlement or other administrative procedures. The EEOC may decide to file a federal lawsuit on behalf of you and your claims. The EEOC files federal lawsuits on job discrimination claims on few complaints but if it decides to pursue yours in federal court you have options. You may allow the EEOC to represent you in court. You can also choose to have a private attorney for job discrimination represent you. This can give you more flexibility and control over your case, particularly over settlements. If the EEOC represents you in federal court then the agency is not required to take direction from you on the lawsuit.

If you have already hired an attorney for job discrimination before filing your EEOC charge of discrimination then you and your attorney will make decisions about how to proceed with a trial at that time.

Hiring an attorney for job discrimination for your Colorado state law claims

As discussed above, Colorado state law also prohibits several forms of job discrimination. Under Colorado law you may also need to file a complaint with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If you file an EEOC complaint you can request to cross-file the complaint with the state. Colorado law has similar administrative procedures as the EEOC. You may need to exhaust administrative remedies applicable to state law to proceed with a lawsuit that includes state law claims.

You should talk to a Colorado attorney for job discrimination about your case before filing a complaint with either agency. Your attorney can discuss the strategic considerations behind filing your claims under federal law, state law, or a combination of the two. Once you start taking action on your claims you may make decisions that limit your procedural options. Gain legal counsel before taking those steps to put the strongest case forward.

Finding a Denver employment lawyer for job discrimination

Employment lawyers in Denver and other parts of Colorado often have experience working with job discrimination claims under federal and state law. There are many ways to find an employment lawyer to advise you on your claims. Employment discrimination claims are among the more common claims handled by employment law attorneys in Colorado. Research lawyers and schedule a consultation with one or more to discuss your claims and consider representation. Employee rights lawyers in Denver and around Colorado can discuss the issues raised in this post with you along with other important issues to your potential lawsuit.

sexual harassment confidentiality agreement

Bill O’Reilly sexual harassment settlements to be revealed

Bill O’Reilly was once at the top of the food chain at Fox News until the focus on President Trump’s sexual harassment crashed into allegations of O’Reilly’s own harassment and the cable network cut ties. In the course of litigating O’Reilly’s current sexual harassment allegations it has become public that he settled several prior sexual harassment claims with other female co-workers although until now the terms of those settlement agreements remained concealed beneath confidentiality provisions. The terms of these settlement agreements are unusual and potentially unethical to the employment lawyers representing the plaintiffs.

One such settlement agreement resolved a harassment claim by Andrea Mackris, a former Fox News producer, who settled a 2004 lawsuit. Among the terms of the settlement agreement entered into the court record in the current lawsuit are two unusual provisions:

  1. Mackris must deny the validity of the allegations and insist they are false, even under oath; and
  2. Her attorney would represent O’Reilly and Fox News regarding sexual harassment allegations.

Deny, deny, deny the sexual harassment allegations

It’s not unusual for employment lawyers to agree to resolve sexual harassment and other employment discrimination lawsuits with agreements that contain various confidentiality provisions. Often employers require plaintiffs to not only maintain confidentiality of the underlying allegations but also to alert the employer if a reason ever arises in which the employee must discuss the allegations or settlement agreement in a legal proceeding or investigation. An employee might be called to participate in an EEOC investigation of another allegation of discrimination or subpoenaed by an attorney to testify in a lawsuit about his or her experiences with the company. In these situations, attorneys for the employer want the opportunity to try to prevent the plaintiff from providing testimony.

However, it is unusual for an agreement to require Mackris to give false testimony under oath or in any other situation which might expose the plaintiff to criminal or civil liability. There are several problems that could exist with this settlement agreement. The agreement may be void under its state law because it is an agreement to commit a future crime. If Mackris gives false testimony in an EEOC or judicial proceeding that exposes her to liability for perjury then it might also expose O’Reilly or Fox News as conspirators in the perjury.

The liability might not fall solely on the parties. The employment lawyers on both sides may share liability as co-conspirators and certainly there could be ethical issues raised by advising their respective clients to enter into this agreement. Mackris’s former attorney may be more at risk because he likely advised his client to accept the terms of the settlement agreement and at least implicitly advised her to commit future perjury. Yikes.

Switch hitting lawyers

The settlement agreement also strangely requires Mackris’s then lawyer to become O’Reilly’s and Fox News’s lawyer to advise them on sexual harassment matters. This is one wacky settlement term not just for a sexual harassment lawsuit but for any lawsuit. It’s clear why O’Reilly and Fox News would want this provision but it’s less clear how Mackris’s lawyer thought this would be a good idea. The settlement agreement read into the court record states:

“As an inducement to O’Reilly and Fox News to enter into this Agreement, and as a material condition thereof, the Morelli Firm (i) agrees to provide legal advice to O’Reilly regarding sexual harassment matters, and (ii) warrants and represents to O’Reilly and Fox News that it will not, and will not knowingly permit any of its employees, agents or representatives to represent, assist or cooperate with any other parties or attorneys in any action against O’Reilly, Fox News or the Companies arising out of actual or alleged sexual harassment issues, nor will they encourage any other parties or attorneys to commence any such action or proceeding.”

Here’s why I believe the defendants wanted this provision:

  • If Mackris’s lawyer represents the defendants in related matters then his firm cannot represent any other plaintiff against them;
  • Which means his law firm cannot use prior knowledge of the settlement agreements or past plaintiffs in future suits against defendants;
  • And cannot provide that information to any other prospective plaintiff or investigator in subsequent proceedings; and
  • Cannot advise Mackris about whether the settlement agreement’s seeming requirement to perjure herself is an enforceable provision.

O’Reilly or Fox News likely worried that Mackris’s lawyer might try to find other co-workers with similar allegations and pursue multiple other lawsuits knowing some of the facts behind the case and how much the defendants would be willing to settle. This is not an unreasonable fear, lawyers do this all the time.

However, while the fear may be reasonable, the way they chose to deal with the problem is not as reasonable. It’s not entirely clear from the court record or the settlement agreement why the plaintiff’s lawyer thought this term was a good idea but it raises eyebrows to see lawyers agree to become an opposing party’s lawyer before the current lawsuit is resolved. The lawyers for the plaintiffs in the current lawsuit described this as switching sides in the middle of the case which Morelli disagrees as an inaccurate description of what happened. At a minimum it raises serious ethical questions about whether a lawyer can even agree to represent an adverse party before representation of the current party concludes.

What to do if you are sexually harassed at work

Unfortunately sexual harassment is all too common at work in Colorado. If you believe you are the victim of sexual harassment at work then you should find an employment lawyer right away to discuss your situation. Sexual harassment claims generally require you to take specific acts with your employer and then with government agencies before you can proceed with a lawsuit. Your employment lawyer can advise you how to maneuver these steps to hopefully resolve the conflict or pursue remedies for the harm caused by the harassment. Sexual harassment lawsuits are rarely simple cases so hire a Colorado employment lawyer to give yourself the best chance for justice.

First Circuit moves towards acknowledging sexual orientation discrimination prohibited by Title VII

Over the past two months I’ve written about federal employment discrimination lawsuits focusing on LGBT-based discrimination as forms of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Second Circuit recently joined the Seventh Circuit to hold sexual orientation is a prohibited form of sex discrimination under Title VII and the Sixth Circuit explicitly held transgender discrimination is prohibited under Title VII. This month the First Circuit continues down the path with another lawsuit involving sexual orientation. Although the First Circuit did not go as far as its colleagues in the Second Circuit and Seventh Circuit, it acknowledged that employment discrimination law is evolving in that direction. This decision in Franchina v. City of Providence is the first to address sexual orientation as the “plus” factor in a sex-plus discrimination lawsuit under Title VII.

The backstory on Franchina v. City of Providence

Lori Franchina was a firefighter for the City of Providence, Rhode Island and is a lesbian who suffered a long history of sex discrimination at work. Franchina worked with a male firefighter who often made comments and sexual gestures to Franchina and other firefighters about her sexual orientation. Although she did not complain herself, the coworker’s behavior became known to a superior who disciplined the coworker. In response, Franchina suffered a long history of workplace harassment related to her sex, including vulgar comments, both verbal and written, and foul acts against her. Despite forty written complaints, the department took no action to stop the harassment. Eventually she retired from the department with a diagnosis of PTSD.

Franchina’s lawsuit advanced to an eight day trial in which she asserted the disgusting behavior was unlawful sex-plus harassment. The “plus” factor alleged was her sexual orientation. The jury awarded her over $800,000 in emotional distress and lost wages which unsurprisingly triggered the employer to appeal. After launching a series of weak arguments up on appeal the First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The plaintiff initially pursued a separate sexual orientation discrimination claim which was dismissed upon a motion to dismiss early in the lawsuit because the First Circuit decided in the past not to extend Title VII over sexual orientation claims. The appellate court explicitly acknowledged that other appellate courts had changed their minds on this issue but declined to follow because Franchina did not appeal the dismissal of her claim. Nevertheless, the sex-plus discrimination claim continues an important line of authoritative acknowledgement of sexual orientation discrimination as a component of sex discrimination under Title VII.

What is a sex-plus discrimination claim under Title VII?

The sex-plus theory of discrimination is a form of sex discrimination that alleges the employer discriminated on the basis of sex plus another factor that made a discrete group of women the target for discrimination. The “plus” factor can be another protected status or trait, such as race or age, but it can also be a factor not explicitly protected like women who have small children. Sex-plus claims do not set a higher burden of evidence for the employee; the employee does not even have to prove the “plus” factor. An employee only has to show sex or gender was, by itself, at least one motivating factor in an adverse employment action.

Sex-plus discrimination claims acknowledge that sometimes sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination target some women but not others because of a second, related trait and the discrimination on the second factor cannot be untangled from the sex discrimination. As a substantive matter, courts have long accepted sex-plus discrimination claims to protect employees from sex discrimination in which only some members of a sex may be targeted because Title VII does not require a perpetrator to discriminate against every member of a sex for the victim to prevail on a claim. Procedurally, when the “plus” factor is not explicitly protected under Title VII the sex-plus discrimination claim makes it difficult for the employer to take the position that it discriminated but only on the unprotected “plus” factor and not on sex or gender.

Sex-plus discrimination and sexual orientation

Nevertheless, that is exactly what the employer attempted to do on appeal in this case. The thrust of the employer’s appeal relies on the argument that the plaintiff only presented sufficient evidence of sexual orientation discrimination and not sex or gender, therefore the jury verdict cannot be upheld. The employer pointed to First Circuit precedent denying sexual orientation as the sole basis for a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. The First Circuit dismantles the employer’s position on two fronts.

First, it acknowledges its own precedent but points out even the employer’s chosen case law the appellate court left open the door to sexual orientation as a “plus” factor. The Court then expresses that no reason exists why sexual orientation cannot be a “plus” factor. The court does not deeply explore this issue but in explicitly thrusting the door fully ajar it took full advantage of the appeal in front of it to expand sexual orientation as an issue related to sex discrimination under Title VII. Not only will this make it easier, at least in this circuit, to bring sex-plus claims with sexual orientation, but also signals the court may be willing to take more progressive steps in future appeals.

Second, the court explored the evidence and found even without looking at the evidence of sexual orientation there was more than sufficient evidence of sexual harassment on plaintiff’s sex and gender given the many offensive comments and acts perpetrated by her coworkers.

Although the First Circuit did not spend much space applying the facts to sexual orientation as a “plus” factor, its clear willingness to do so in any future case has broad and important meaning for future cases in the circuit.

What this case means for Colorado employees

As usual, I like to bring these discussions back to Colorado and what it means for employees in this state. Colorado is not part of the First Circuit so this case does not directly affect employees in this state; however, it is another federal circuit moving sympathetically towards including sexual orientation discrimination as a prohibited act under Title VII which affects Colorado employees. As more circuits reverse precedent opposing its inclusion, the circuits will either settle the matter by reaching agreement or a circuit split will push the Supreme Court to have the final word. Then federal law will join Colorado state law in prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination at work, giving employees another legal avenue to pursue claims for sex discrimination in the workplace. If you believe you suffered employment discrimination at work on the basis of sex or sexual orientation then you should find an employment law attorney in Colorado and schedule a consultation.

Another appellate court holds Title VII bars LGBT discrimination as a form of sex discrimination

Last week I wrote about the Second Circuit’s opinion earlier this year holding sexual orientation discrimination as a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. In the title of that post I questioned whether the tide is turning among federal courts to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII. It certainly seems that way as the Sixth Circuit dropped its opinion in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes reaching the same conclusion on transgender discrimination. This brings the count to three of the thirteen federal circuits abandoning earlier positions opposing inclusion of LGBT discrimination under Title VII in favor of broader protections against sex discrimination.

Overview of EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes

In EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes a transgender employee was fired after disclosing her intent to transition. Aimee Stevens was hired by the funeral home with her male birth name and appearance. After obtaining the job she informed her employer that she intended to transition and would begin working with her female appearance. The funeral director in response fired her. A Michigan federal district court dismissed the EEOC‘s case on the basis that transgender discrimination was not a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.

Sixth Circuit holds transgender discrimination is sex discrimination

The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the district court holding:

We hold that the EEOC could pursue a claim under Title VII on the ground that the Funeral Home discriminated against Stephens on the basis of her transgender status and transitioning identity. The EEOC should have had the opportunity, either through a motion for summary judgment or at trial, to establish that the Funeral Home violated Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex by firing Stephens because she was transgender and transitioning from male to female.

Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII. The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex, and therefore the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment as to its unlawful-termination claim.

Total beat down on the district judge.

Unlike sexual orientation discrimination which has only more recently been recognized as a form of sex discrimination under employment discrimination laws, discrimination on the basis of gender and sex stereotypes has been recognized as an unlawful form of sex discrimination under Title VII since Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989 and commonly extended to cover transgender discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit also rejected the employer’s argument that accepting her identity burdens his exercise of religious freedom.

Although in last week’s post I opined that SCOTUS likely won’t hear any of these cases until more circuits weigh in and a circuit split in new cases exists; however, with the interplay of the religious issue SCOTUS might be more inclined to hear this case given its recent desire to hear cases on religious freedom issues.

What this means for Colorado employees

Another decision outside of the Tenth Circuit bears no direct effect on Colorado employers or employees but it brings us closer to a day when the Tenth Circuit may find allies on either side of its own decision on LGBT issues. If this case makes its way to SCOTUS and the court decides to weigh in on the LGBT issues under Title VII then the issue may be settled under federal law for Colorado. For now employees facing LGBT discrimination in Colorado enjoy protections under state law so the issue is less urgent in this states than other less forward-thinking states. Colorado employees facing LGBT discrimination in the workplace should contact a Denver employment lawyer for help.

Denver employment lawyers

Colorado Labor Law

Employees in Denver and other parts of Colorado enjoy protection under federal, state and local laws. Employees enjoy protections under wage laws, labor organizing laws, anti-employment discrimination laws, worker safety laws, benefit plan laws, worker’s compensation, contract law, medical leave laws and a variety of other statutes and regulations. On several areas of labor and employment law, an employee’s claim may fall under both federal and state law. Colorado employment lawyers understand the fit between these laws and how to best represent their clients claims. Filing claims under federal or state law can dictate what courts a worker can enter. Which court hears an employee’s case may affect the available remedies, the available jury pool and other factors that affect the worker’s probability of a successful claim.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 8: Labor and Industry

Most Colorado labor and employment laws exist within Colorado Revised Statutes title 8. This includes wage and hour laws, workers compensation and the Colorado unemployment benefits system. Like most states, the wage and hour sections of the Colorado Revised Statutes contains some provisions that mirror federal wage and hour laws but also includes provisions expanding upon federal law. The Colorado Revised Statutes provides greater specification on the timing and method of wage payments, such as payroll deductions, pay dates, pay frequency and payment of wages after termination. Workers compensation and unemployment benefits are solely state law issues.

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24: Government

Title 24, Article 34 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 24-34-401 et seq) includes the Colorado state law prohibiting employment discrimination. Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes makes it unlawful for an employer, employment agency, or labor union to discriminate on the basis of:

  • Age
  • Disability
  • Creed
  • Color
  • Ancenstry
  • National origin
  • Sex
  • Sexual orientation
  • Race
  • Pregnancy and childbirth

The protected classes of employees under Colorado law closely mirrors federal law with the exception that it specifically prohibits sexual orientation. Currently federal courts hold that sexual orientation is not prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or any other federal anti-discrimination law. Colorado law closely follows the meanings and usage of reasonable accommodations, harassment and retaliation related to employment discrimination.

Additional protections for employees under Title 24

This title of the Colorado Revised Statutes also prohibits employers from discharging employees for off premises work activity unless that activity is closely related to a bona fide occupational requirement or the activity would create a conflict of interest for the employer.

Additionally, this section of the Colorado Revised Statutes protects the right to three days of leave for the victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault for medical care, seeking legal help, or protecting himself or herself from further abuse.

A claim under Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes must be filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission within six months. The exception is for claims that the employer discharged the employee for off work activity. Those claims may be filed in district court within the applicable limitations period for filing a civil suit. (Galvan v. SPANISH PEAKS REG. HEALTH CENTER, 98 P.3d 949 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004))

Colorado labor and employment laws and employment lawyers

This post is just the tip of the iceberg of the labor and employment laws that cover Colorado workers. If you believe your employer mistreated you in hiring decisions, termination decisions, or during your employment then you should speak with employment lawyers in Denver, Colorado right away about your concerns. Many claims have brief limitations periods that require employees to take action to preserve claims.