Employment Law Observer

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a final version of its Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment. The new guidance provides  updates and agency direction on workplace harassment in virtual or online work environments, as well as harassment related to sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and religion.

Ever since the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Smith v. City of Jackson, plaintiff employment lawyers have struggled with how best to assert a viable claim of disparate impact age discrimination. The concept of disparate impact discrimination was recognized by the Supreme Court decades ago in Griggs v. Duke Power, which established that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful—even if facially neutral—for employer practices to have a materially adverse impact on a protected group, unless the neutral practice is supported by business necessity.

Conflict exists between every generation, at least to some degree, and this is not new. Advancements in technology, the status of the economy, and other large-scale factors create differences in perspective between older and younger generations. But employers should be vigilant and warn employees about the use of "Ok Boomer" and other age-related comments, as well as dismissive attitudes directed towards older workers. Given the prevalence of lawsuits alleging age discrimination and harassment, this latest popular phrase is cause for concern.

Earlier this week, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a Missouri district court's decision in Von Kaenel v. Armstrong Teasdale, LLP. This case of first impression for the circuit court involved an equity partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Joseph S. von Kaenel, who was forced out at age 70 at the conclusion of 2014. He alleged that but for the firm's mandatory retirement policy in the firm's partnership agreement, he would have retired at or around 75. He filed suit in federal court, where the central issue was whether he was an employee covered under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Eighth Circuit concluded that he was not an employee covered by the ADEA.

In a split decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held en banc that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's (ADEA) protections against disparate impact age discrimination do not extend to applicants. Rather, they apply only to employees.

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

In a recent 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to public employers of any size.

In honor of the golden anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the EEOC issued a report entitled "The State of Age Discrimination & Older Workers in the U.S. 50 Years After the ADEA." At a time when sex and race issues are at the forefront of the news, the EEOC reminds us that older workers face struggles of their own obtaining and retaining employment.

If your company hires in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin, and uses years of experience ranges in job postings, it is time to break out the red pen and strike the upper end of those ranges. In a 2-1 opinion, the 7th Circuit recently held the disparate impact provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects outside job applicants as well as internal job applicants. Now, hiring practices that disparately impact outside applicants over age 40 are unlawful. Applying that ruling in the case before it, the court revived a disparate impact lawsuit claiming experience caps disparately impacted older workers in violation of the ADEA.

When former District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier stepped into her new role as security chief for the National Football League (“NFL”), she let it be known there was a “new sheriff in town,” a federal lawsuit alleges. About one year later, the NFL fired 9 security representatives accounting for approximately 1/3rd of the league’s staffing for the position and approximately 75% of the security representatives who were of the of age 60 or older. The security personnel promptly filed a federal suit in the Southern District of New York.

Every employer has faced the unfortunate experience of hiring an employee whose performance fell well below expectation. As highlighted in the Seventh Circuit’s recent Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District decision, employers faced with poor performing employees should carefully address and document such shortcomings to ward off potential Title VII charges.

In Guido v. Mount Lemmon Fire District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to public employers of any size.

In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar direct and indirect methods of proving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s instruction should apply with equal force to claims brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints make up nearly half of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC today. Thus, it is critical that employers, their managers, supervisors, and employees understand who the laws protect and what constitutes retaliation.

Mark Twain once said, “Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.”

With the rising costs of health care benefits for both employers and employees alike, a recent case out of the Eighth Circuit provides an important reminder that even seemingly innocuous cost control measures can have a discriminatory impact and can land an employer in hot water.

The Sixth Circuit recently upheld a Michigan district court's decision to dismiss a 52-year-old African-American female security guard's age, race, and sex discrimination claims arising from her discharge following an incident with a combative psychiatric patient at the hospital where she worked.

After an employee for a delivery service was terminated, he filed an age discrimination claim against his employer. In addition to defending the matter on the merits, the employer also argued that employee's age claim was time-barred due to a six-month limitation period included within the employee's employment agreement. The employee argued that the provision was unenforceable because it foreclosed his ability to wait and receive a right to sue notice from the EEOC before bringing suit. In rejecting this argument, the Sixth Circuit pointed to the fact that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), unlike claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, do not require an employee to receive a right to sue notice as a precondition to filing suit. Rather, an employee can file suit 60 days after filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Consequently, the provision did not impair the employee's rights and was held to bar his ADEA claim. In light of this holding, coupled with recent strong Supreme Court support for the enforceability of class waivers within employment agreements, employers should evaluate their use of employment agreements within the workforce and determine if additional protections can be incorporated.

A 61 year-old employee's supervisor made age-related comments over a four month period. Later, while informing the employee that she was being fired, the supervisor suggested that the employee was "too old" for the job. The employee sued her former employer for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the state's civil rights act. The trial court dismissed the employee's lawsuit and the employee filed an appeal.

The technology company, which manufactured components for large-scale computer networks and data storage systems, employed a team of sales account managers. This particular account manager was successful in generating significant revenue for the company over the course of several years. The Company began to make changes to procedures and started to cut costs due to the downturn in the economy and the industry changes in terms of how data is stored, which ultimately led to the reduction in force of the sales team from five employees to two. The account manager, however, felt that this rationale was a pretext for age discrimination, and that he was selected for lay off because of his age. To back this up, he pointed to comments made by the vice president of sales about needing to “re-energize” the team, which he considered disparaging remarks regarding the ages of the sales team. He accordingly filed a charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, who dismissed the complaint for a lack of probable cause. He then filed suit in state court, claiming, among other things, age discrimination under Massachusetts law. The employer removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on diversity jurisdiction, and then moved for summary judgment on all counts. The district court granted this motion, and Woodward appealed.