Fourth Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict in Racial Harassment and Retaliation Action Despite Erroneous Causation Instruction

In E.E.O.C. v. A.C. Widenhouse, Inc. (06/24/2014), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a substantial plaintiffs’ jury verdict in a case featuring claims of a racially hostile work environment, racially discriminatory discharge, and retaliatory discharge.  The lawsuit was brought first by the United States Equal Employment Commission (“EEOC”) on behalf of two black employees, and also included additional claims brought by Contonious Gill, one of the affected employees, after he intervened in the action.

Gill had worked for A.C. Widenhouse as a truck driver from May of 2007 until his termination in June of 2008.  During his employment, Gill was subjected to racial epithets, which included use of the “N” word and the term “porch monkey.”  He also heard racially charged jokes and witnessed displays of objects such as nooses and confederate flags.  Gill testified that he repeatedly reported these incidents to superiors, who did nothing to remedy the problem.  Gill was terminated in June of 2008 when he was unable to complete a delivery due to illness.  Gill alleged that the termination was due to racial discrimination as well as retaliation for his reporting the harassment.

The jury found Widenhouse liable on each claim and awarded Gill $105,000.00 in damages.  The judge, in turn, awarded Gill an additional $88,509 in back pay and prejudgment interest. The judge also ordered Widenhouse to pay $139,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

In its appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Widenhouse contended that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the law applicable to the claim of retaliation.  On this point, the trial judge instructed the jury that it should find Widenhouse liable for violating Title VII's retaliation prohibition if the jury found that retaliation for Gill's protected activity of reporting racial discrimination was a motivating factor in his termination.  This instruction was contrary to recent United States Supreme Court precedent holding that a retaliation plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff’s protected conduct (here, Gill’s complaints of harassment) must have been the “but-for” cause of the retaliatory action.  

While acknowledging the erroneous instruction, the Court of Appeals nevertheless affirmed the verdict because Widenhouse failed to show that the erroneous instruction affected the outcome of the retaliation claim.  In its analysis on this point, the Court found significant the jury’s verdict sheet, which noted the jury’s finding that the termination was “because of” his opposition to unlawful harassment.  The Court also found that the jury’s finding of liability for the same conduct under a companion Section 1981 federal law theory to demonstrate further a lack of prejudice from the erroneous instruction.

In affirming the jury verdict despite the erroneous jury instruction, the opinion also demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement of a “but-for” causation requirement really is not the significant change in the law that employers initially believed.  Other recent cases decided by other courts have previously noted that there can be more than one “but-for” cause, and the opinion here seems to confirm the point.  Other commentators have discussed how the traditional analytical framework for retaliation claims appears to have been altered little by the distinction between “motivating factor” and “but-for” causation. We tend to agree that the but-for causation requirement is unlikely to dramatically alter the danger presented by retaliation claims when termination decisions closely follow an employee’s complaints of work place discrimination or harassment.

Protection from Pregnancy Discrimination Expands as Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Determines Lactation Discrimination is Unlawful Sex Discrimination

In a recent opinion, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer’s decision to terminate a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk constitutes an actionable form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

The case, EEOC v. Houston Funding, II, involved a mother who, in December of 2008, took leave from work for the birth of her child.   Before returning to work, the mother advised her supervisor that she was breastfeeding and asked whether it would be possible for her to use a breast pump at work.  The supervisor, in turn, posed the question to Harry Cagle, the company’s Limited Partner.  Mr. Cagle responded with, “No.  Maybe she needs to stay home longer.”

On February 17, 2009, the employee called Mr. Cagle to report that she had been medically cleared to return to work.  During this same conversation, she again mentioned that she was lactating and asked whether she could use a back room to pump milk.  According to the employee, Mr. Cagle paused at length before responding that her position had been filled.  On February 20, 2009, the company mailed a letter, dated February 16, 2009, to the employee stating that she had been terminated for abandoning her job.

The EEOC filed a Title VII lawsuit against Houston Funding alleging that it had discriminated against the employee, based on her sex, including her pregnancy and childbirth, by terminating her employment.  Houston Funding moved for summary judgment on grounds that Title VII does not prohibit “breast pump discrimination.”  The District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the motion, finding that firing a person because of lactation or breast pumping is not sex discrimination.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court.  In so doing, the Court pointed to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII to make clear that sex discrimination includes “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”  The Court then concluded that lactation is a medical condition related to childbirth.  The Court also held that terminating a woman because she is lactating or expressing milk states a cognizable Title VII cause of action.  Without detailed discussion, the Court additionally concluded that ample evidence had been produced for finding the employer’s offered reason for the termination pretextual.  Consequently, the lower court ruling was vacated and the case remanded to the District Court.

The ruling sends a clear message that protection from pregnancy discrimination expands beyond the period of pregnancy and childbirth.  Women are equally protected from discrimination on the basis of medical conditions related to childbirth.

Finally, it should be noted that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), which was signed into law on March 23, 2010, added still additional statutory protections to breastfeeding mothers.  It did so by amending the Fair Labor Standards Act to require covered employers to provide “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.”  Consequently, an employer who discriminates against a woman for expressing milk in the workplace today would face potential exposure under both the FLSA and Title VII.

As the above case law and statutory developments reflect, pregnancy and its aftermath continue to present significant legal issues in the workplace.  If you are confronting uncertainty with respect to legal rights and/or obligations arising from a current or recent pregnancy, you should contact experienced legal counsel for assistance.

North Carolina Federal Court Dismisses Wrongful Discharge Claims Under Both ADEA and North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act

In previous posts, we have discussed the exacting proof that is necessary in order for a claim of age discrimination to prevail.  A United States District Court case from the Western District of North Carolina, Darnell v. Tyson Foods, Inc., demonstrates well the proof challenges an age discrimination plaintiff faces. 

As we explained in a previous post, the Court dismissed this case short of trial in part because it determined that a company’s decision to require a 63 year-old, forty year veteran employee to change to a third shift position, immediately after his return from prostate surgery, was not an adverse employment action.  The Court therefore determined that the plaintiff could not establish the second of four essential elements of a prima facie case of age discrimination.

In its decision, the Court also found that the plaintiff failed to establish the fourth and final element of the required prima facie case of age discrimination.  Recall from our prior posts that this fourth element requires a showing that the employment position from which the plaintiff was terminated remained open or that the plaintiff was replaced by a substantially younger individual.

In this case, the plaintiff was eventually replaced by a 57 year-old man.  In other words, the plaintiff’s replacement was only six years younger.  The Court therefore assessed whether a six year difference in age was sufficient to constitute replacement by a substantially younger individual.  After noting that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which is the Circuit that oversees North Carolina federal district courts), the Court found that sister circuits have generally found age differences of less than ten years insufficient to satisfy this prima facie case element.  The Court then determined, “[a]bsent any evidence to suggest discrimination, the six year age difference in this case is not sufficient by itself to satisfy the substantially younger requirement.”  Consequently, the plaintiff’s prima facie case failed for this further reason.

In the absence of a prima facie case of age discrimination, the plaintiff’s primary claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) was dismissed via summary judgment.

Finally, the plaintiff had also asserted an alternative claim for wrongful discharge under North Carolina state law.  The plaintiff based this claim on N.C. Stat.Gen § 143–422.2, a statute recognizing that it is against North Carolina public policy for an employer of 15 or more to discriminate, “on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap.”  The statute is found in North Carolina’s Equal Employment Practices Act.  In its opinion, the Court made short work in dismissing this alternative claim for the same reasons cited in dismissing the federal age discrimination claim.  In this way, the Court concluded, as have other federal courts to consider the issue, that the North Carolina public policy claim is subject to the same analysis and proof standards as the analogous federal law cause of action.

Darnell demonstrates well the proof difficulties that claims of age discrimination face.  In addition, the case confirms that North Carolina public policy claims are hardly a panacea for claimants.  Although claims pursued under North Carolina’s Equal Employment Practices Act offers certain advantages, such as a longer limitations period and the option of foregoing EEOC administrative review, these claims are ultimately subject to the same substantive analysis and demanding proof requirements as claims pursued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.