Employee Can Sue More Than One Employer For Discrimination

For the first time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has expressly adopted the joint employment doctrine for Title VII cases.  Now, an employee can potentially go after more than just the company that pays her when bringing a claim for unlawful discrimination or harassment.  The Fourth Circuit joins the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that more than one company can be held liable for an employee’s claim under Title VII.

Brenda Butler was hired by ResourceMFG, a temporary staffing agency, to work at the Drive Automotive Industries (“Drive Automotive”) factory in South Carolina.  During her time at the Drive Automotive factory, Ms. Butler wore a ResourceMFG uniform, her paycheck came from ResourceMFG, she parked her car in a special ResourceMFG lot, and ResourceMFG had the power to discipline and fire her.  But Drive Automotive set Ms. Butler’s work schedule and arranged portions of her training, and Drive Automotive employees supervised Ms. Butler when she was on the factory floor.

Ms. Butler claimed that one of her Drive Automotive supervisors verbally and physically harassed her on the job.  She said that the supervisor commented on many occasions about her physical features, particularly her rear end, even giving her the nickname “big booty Judy.”  According to Ms. Butler, the supervisor also rubbed up against her in a sexually suggestive way.  She complained about the sexual harassment to management at ResourceMFG, but she says they did nothing.  After further complaints from Ms. Butler, Drive Automotive made a request to Resource MFG that she be terminated.  Shortly thereafter, Ms. Butler received a call from ResourceMFG terminating her employment at Drive Automotive.

In response, Ms. Butler brought Title VII claims against not only her official employer, ResourceMFG, but also against Drive Automotive, since it was a Drive Automotive supervisor who she claimed sexually harassed her.  A South Carolina district court dismissed Ms. Butler’s claims against Drive Automotive, after determining that ResourceMFG was her sole employer for purposes of liability under Title VII.  But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed this dismissal of Ms. Butler’s Title VII case against Drive Automotive, after finding that Drive Automotive could be liable under the joint employer doctrine.

This decision is the first time that the Fourth Circuit has expressly adopted the joint employer doctrine for Title VII cases, joining several other federal appellate jurisdictions across the country.  The Court reasoned that, given the remedial purpose of Title VII in stamping out discrimination in the workplace, the joint employer doctrine prevents a company from evading liability by hiding behind another employer such as a staffing agency.

In order to determine whether a company is a joint employer for purposes of liability under Title VII, the Fourth Circuit adopted what it called the “hybrid test,” which is comprised of nine enumerated factors, to consider the level of control a company has over a particular worker.  The Court said that of those nine factors, the most important are the following three: 1) whether the entity has the power to hire and fire; 2) whether the entity has supervisory power over the employee; and 3) whether the entity controls the place and way in which the employee performs the work.  The Court made it clear that the degree of control that an entity exercises over a worker remains the principal guidepost for determining joint employment under Title VII.

While the impact of this case for staffing companies is obvious, this case could reverberate far beyond the staffing industry.  In the government contracting arena, it is common for prime contractors to use subcontractors whose employees are closely controlled by the prime.  Similarly, in the construction industry, the employees of prime contractors and subcontractors are often closely intertwined.  These types of companies will need to be extra careful not to exercise too much control over non-employees, or they may find themselves on the receiving end of a Title VII suit.

Declan Leonard is managing partner of the Washington, DC regional business law firm Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at DLeonard@BerenzweigLaw.com. 

National Origin Employment Discrimination Covers Europeans

Recently, a federal judge in Virginia was presented with the novel legal issue of whether someone of European descent is covered under the national origin protections of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act.

A Caucasian professor with a Ph.D. from Harvard applied for several different teaching positions at Northern Virginia Community College.  Each time a minority candidate was selected over him: first, a native of India; second, a native of Korea; third, a native of Senegal; and fourth, another native of India.  The community college said he was not selected for the positions because he did not provide enough evidence of outstanding teaching skills.  The professor countered by citing his prior teaching positions at Harvard, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and The Naval Academy.

The professor sued the community college for discrimination based on national origin, claiming that his European ancestry was viewed as a negative at Northern Virginia Community College where minorities make up the majority of the student body.  The community college countered that European does not constitute a protected national origin under federal discrimination law because there is such a variation of cultures among the countries of Europe.

A federal judge in Alexandria agreed with the professor that European is a protected class.  The court reasoned that despite differences from one country to the next, Europe has enough commonality in terms of people, culture and linguistics to make it an identifiable place of national origin.

This turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the professor, however, because the court ultimately found against him on his substantive discrimination claim against Northern Virginia Community College.  The court concluded that despite his Ivy League credentials, the professor failed to provide enough peer references and prior teaching accolades compared with the candidates who were ultimately chosen over him.

Declan Leonard is managing partner of the Washington, DC regional business law firm Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at DLeonard@BerenzweigLaw.com.

Are Child Care Duties Protected Under Federal Workplace Laws?

A recent case from the Alexandria, Virginia Federal Court addressed the issue of whether an employee’s child care responsibilities were protected under federal discrimination laws.  A male pharmaceutical sales rep was supposed to start work each day at 8:00 a.m.  Under an arrangement he had with his working wife, however, he needed to drop his child off at school at 8:30 a.m. four days a week, and therefore he could not start work on those days until roughly 9:00 a.m.  His supervisor told him that this later start time was not acceptable, and asked why his wife could not drop their child off at school instead.  The male rep was not the only employee who had kids, but he was the only male rep whose wife also worked outside the home.

The rep complained to Human Resources that he was being singled out because of his family responsibilities, and that the supervisor’s comments were based on a stereotype that “it’s the wife’s job” to do things such as taking the kids to school.  He eventually sued the company for gender discrimination.

A federal judge in Alexandria recently dismissed the employee’s case prior to trial, after concluding that the company’s 8:00 a.m. start time policy was applied uniformly to all employees, regardless of gender and regardless of whether an employee had children or not.  The court pointed out that federal discrimination laws do not protect against discrimination  that is based on caregiver responsibilities.  The court added that it would be a violation of federal discrimination laws if the company had treated mothers differently than fathers in terms of scheduling.

Had the company been in the District of Columbia however, the result may have been different as D.C. is one of two states (Alaska being the other) that explicitly outlaws discrimination in the workplace based on family responsibilities.  

Declan Leonard is managing partner of the Washington, DC regional business law firm Berenzweig Leonard, LLP. He can be reached at DLeonard@BerenzweigLaw.com.