Articles Posted in Hiring Practices

Lev Craig

Last week, on June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiff Richard Villarreal’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to review the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In Villarreal, the court was asked to consider whether the ADEA permits job applicants who have been disadvantaged in the hiring process because of their age to bring disparate impact claims. The Eleventh Circuit ruled against Villarreal, holding that the ADEA only creates a disparate impact cause of action for existing employees, not job applicants. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant certiorari means that the Eleventh Circuit’s decision will stand and, for now, the issue will remain open to interpretation by lower courts and the other Circuits.

In 2007, Richard Villarreal applied for a position as a territory manager at R.J. Reynolds, a large tobacco manufacturer and distributor. R.J. Reynolds rejected Villarreal, who was 49 years old at the time, based on a set of standardized internal guidelines. These guidelines stated that the ideal candidate for the territory manager position would be “2–3 years out of college” and instructed reviewers to “stay away from” applicants whose résumés stated that they had been “in sales for 8–10 years.”

Lev Craig

On September 21, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Southern District of Alabama’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, in which the district court held that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from having dreadlocks did not constitute race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

In May 2010, Chastity Jones, who is Black and wears her hair in dreadlocks, completed an online employment application for a customer service representative position at Catastrophe Management Solutions (CMS), an insurance claims processing company based in Mobile, Alabama, and was selected for an in-person interview. Ms. Jones performed well in her interview, and CMS hired her for the customer service representative position on the spot.

Lev Craig and Shelby Krzastek

Earlier this week, on March 6, 2017, class members and McDonald’s management requested final approval of a $950,000 proposed settlement in James Wesley Carter v. Shalhoub Management Co., et al., a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The approximately 2,300 class members allege that Shalhoub Management Co. (“Shalhoub”), a California-based McDonald’s franchise operator, did not comply with its obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) when it conducted background checks on employees and job applicants without their knowledge and used those background checks to determine whether to hire or terminate those individuals.

The FCRA is a comprehensive statute that regulates how consumer reporting agencies store, disseminate, and use consumer information. Under the FCRA, employers requesting background information, such as credit reports or criminal background checks, from job applicants must get the applicant’s written permission and inform applicants in writing—in a separate notice not included in the employment application—that the results of the background check may be used to make employment decisions. If an employer then takes an adverse action against an employee or refuses to hire a job applicant based on the received background information, the employer must provide the employee or applicant with a copy of the relevant report, inform the individual that they were rejected or terminated based on the report, and provide an opportunity to dispute or explain any inaccurate or negative information.

Harrison Paige

In Edwards v. Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, Chris Edwards, a Black man, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), alleging that the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (“OBN”) refused to promote him to the Agent in Charge (“AIC”) position because of his race. On January 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied OBN’s motion for summary judgment.

In its motion, OBN argued that Mr. Edwards did not receive the promotion because he (1) was not qualified for the position, and (2) performed poorly during the interview. In response, Plaintiff argued that, with respect to the first point, OBN did not consider qualification in its decision. Mr. Edwards alleged that the OBN division director responsible for hiring for the AIC position, Darrell Weaver, preselects candidates for promotions and holds sham interviews to hide the preselection, thereby making a candidate’s qualifications for the position obsolete. In support, Mr. Edwards alleged that, on previous occasions, Mr. Weaver had sent employees through “chief school” before those employees had been promoted to the “chief” position; Mr. Weaver then held interviews with those two employees for the chief role and, unsurprisingly, chose them for the job.

Shelby Krzastek

Bill Brown alleges that Stevens Transport, one of the four largest refrigerated trucking companies in the United States, refused to hire him as a truck driver because he takes medication to control his bipolar disorder. On November 30, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Mr. Brown’s behalf.

Mr. Brown applied for employment as a driver with Stevens Transport in March 2015. Stevens Transport told Mr. Brown they would not hire him as a truck driver because he regularly took a certain medication to manage symptoms of bipolar disorder, due to a a company policy prohibiting drivers from taking medications including Lexapro, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and Latuda. Mr. Brown objected, as he had fulfilled a course in advanced truck driving and passed the Department of Transportation (DOT) physical that is required to hold a commercial driver’s license (CDL). Mr. Brown claims that neither Stevens Transport nor its physician made an individual assessment of him, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Brown’s medical provider issued a report stating Mr. Brown was capable of driving safely while on medication. No U.S. DOT regulations prohibit people who take medication for bipolar disorder from commercial truck driving.

Lev Craig

Despite major societal advances in gender equality in the past several decades, pay disparities between men and women are still a pervasive problem in American workplaces. In 2014, the median earnings of women who worked full-time were 83 percent of those of their male counterparts, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Last week, in an important step towards eliminating gender-based compensation inequities, Massachusetts enacted bipartisan legislation that has been called “one of the strongest equal pay bills in the nation.”

There are already several federal statutes in place that are intended to establish equal pay for employees of all genders: The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”) prohibits employers from paying unequal wages to men and women who perform substantially equal jobs, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbid compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. However, the new Massachusetts law has notable differences from these federal statutes, including an entirely unique provision concerning an employer’s ability to ask about a prospective employee’s history of compensation.

Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Women often are the victims of gender discrimination when they apply for traditionally “male” jobs. This type of gender discrimination is particularly pernicious because it is a vicious cycle: a “man’s job” is a “man’s job” because men tend to do it, which discourages interested women from applying because doing so goes “against their sex.” Thus, when women inevitably do not apply, the job remains only a “man’s job.” According to the World Bank, “Gender segregation in access to economic opportunities in turn reinforces gender differences in time use and in access to inputs, and perpetuates market and institutional failures.”  As a result, women—especially those less educated who live in poorer regions—face greater challenges than men finding work and supporting themselves and their families.

To fight these market and institutional failures in the United States, Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against women in employment. Enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Title VII is the U.S.’s principal defense against sex discrimination.

Lev Craig and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

When Philip Sullivan decided to apply for a warehouse job at Grisham Farm Products, Inc. (Grisham), he learned that Grisham required all applicants to complete a 3-page “Health History” as part of their employment application. This form asked applicants to respond to 43 questions concerning their medical histories, including whether they had consulted with a healthcare provider in the past 24 months or suffered from specific medical issues, such as heart conditions, depression, and sexually transmitted infections, among others.

As Mr. Sullivan has disabilities, he was worried that his answers would reveal them and thus negatively impact his chances in the hiring process; therefore, he decided not to apply for the job and instead contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC sued Grisham on his behalf, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA). The ADA prohibits employers from inquiring into a person’s medical history before making a conditional offer of employment, and GINA prohibits employers from requesting genetic information from job applicants.

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Women of color are leaving large firms at an alarming rate. According to the ABA Commission on Women in the Profession (the”Commission”), 85 percent of minority female attorneys in the United States leave large firms within seven yeas of hiring. This high attrition rate is largely due to the unique problems that women of color face at large law firms.

The Commission’s research concludes that women of color leave lucrative large firm jobs because they feel forced out due to discrimination, isolation and constant microaggressions. In 2003, it found that “in both law firms and corporate legal departments, women of color receive less compensation than men and white women; are denied equal access to significant assignments, mentoring and sponsorship opportunities; receive fewer promotions; and have the highest rate of attrition.” These problems force women of color to leave big law, resulting in the same problems for future generations, causing perpetual underrepresentation.

Yarelyn Mena

Employment discrimination can occur at the application stage; an individual does not need to be a current or former employee to bring a discrimination claim. It is important for everyone in the labor force to know that prospective employees are also protected by antidiscrimination laws.

Prospective employees generally do not attend a job interview on the alert for an interviewer’s discriminatory questions but, according to a survey conducted by the job search website CareerBuilder, twenty percent of hiring managers ask “off-limits” questions during interviews. The following is a list of ten categories that candidates should be weary of if interviewers breach these topics. It is important to note that although many of these questions are not explicitly illegal to ask, they give rise to an inference of discrimination.