Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Posts Tagged ‘Laura Bailey Gallagher’

Supervisors must have Authority to Hire and Fire

by HDlawblog Posted: Thursday, 8/8/2013

On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Vance v. Ball State University that when analyzing harassment claims, to determine whether the employer is vicariously liable, a “supervisor” is an individual who has the authority to take tangible employment actions against others. Individuals who do not has this authority should be treated as “co-workers.”

As background, in the 1998 Faragher and Ellerth decisions regarding employer liability for sexual harassment, the Supreme Court held that an employer can be held liable for harassment by coworkers only if the employer did not take sufficient steps to prevent and correct harassment, but the employer is strictly liable for the harassment by a supervisor if it resulted in a tangible employment action (such as discharge or demotion). In Vance, the Supreme Court clarified that in order the employer to be strictly liable, a supervisor must be a person who has the authority to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline, or otherwise take tangible adverse employment actions against employees.

The Vance opinion will allow employers to demonstrate in more cases that they have taken appropriate measures to prevent and correct harassment because fewer individuals will meet the definition of supervisor. In addition, because whether an individual is deemed a supervisor is more clear, employees (probably on the advice of counsel) may be more likely to try to resolve matters internally. However, employers should be aware that even if higher-level, non-supervisory employees such as shift leads and foremen do not have the authority to take tangible employment action, they may still be held to a higher standard than regular co-workers, so employers should be sure they are properly trained on harassment.

In addition, given the importance of the term supervisor under this decision, employers should make sure their job descriptions accurately reflect the authority given to each position. Employers should also review policies regarding decision-making procedures and complaint procedures to ensure that the authority given to various positions is accurate and consistent with the Company’s intentions.

This article is authored by attorney Laura Bailey Gallagher and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Tags: employee, employees, Employer, Employment and Labor Law, firing, harassment, Harmon & Davies, hiring, labor and employment, Laura Bailey Gallagher, supervisors, Vance v. Ball State University
Posted in Anti-Harassment Policy, Labor & Employment | No Comments »

EEOC Tests its Guidance on Use of Criminal Records

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 8/5/2013

On June 11, the EEOC filed its first test cases under its guidance on the use of criminal records in making hiring decisions. The defendants are Dollar General Corp. and a BMW manufacturing plant in South Carolina. The claims, filed in federal courts, allege that the defendants’ use of criminal background checks disproportionately excluded Black candidates on the premise that Blacks have a higher rate of criminal convictions than Whites.

As background, you may recall that in 2012, the EEOC issued Guidance on the use of criminal records in employment decisions which states that the EEOC will find any policy that automatically excludes applicants due to criminal records constitutes evidence of discrimination. According to the Guidance, arrest and incarceration rates for Blacks and Hispanics are 2 to 3 times greater than for Whites; therefore, using criminal records as a bar to employment disproportionately excludes minorities and results in disparate impact discrimination.

The EEOC requires that when an employer asks whether an applicant has criminal convictions, an employer must state that conviction is not an automatic bar to employment. When a criminal conviction is disclosed either on the application or in a background check or both, the employer must conduct a “targeted screen” to consider the nature of the job, the nature of the offense, and the time passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence. The employer must also conduct an individualized assessment by informing the job candidate that s/he may be excluded from employment due to the conviction and provide an opportunity to describe or explain circumstances including age at time of conviction, rehabilitation, mistaken identity, employment history after conviction or other factors.

Dollar General and the BMW plant have been accused of having policies that automatically bar employment without following the targeting screening and individualized assessment process. Both deny the allegations.

The claims against Dollar General allege that its policy that automatically bans candidates who have been convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia or flagrant failure to pay child support within the last 10 years, or illegal dumping or improper supervision of a child within the last 3 years is unlawful because it fails to consider other factors such as the age of the applicant when the crime was committed and whether the crime is related to the job. The lawsuit alleges that Dollar General’s policy has unlawfully excluded candidates nationwide for almost 10 years.

The BMW manufacturer is charged with discriminating against Blacks when it required its new warehouse staffing contractor to conduct criminal background checks on all current and new employees and terminate or exclude anyone who had a criminal record from any year. The previous contractor excluded candidates with a criminal record within 7 years. The new contractor was hiring the old contractors, and as a result of BMW’s new policy, 88 workers were discharged, 70 of them Black, including some who had worked at the warehouse for more than 10 years.

While these cases may take years to conclude, depending on how they are resolved, they may test EEOC’s interpretation of what constitutes evidence of disparate impact under Title VII. Meanwhile, employers should refrain from implementing policies that automatically exclude job candidates based on specific parameters of their criminal convictions, such as time of conviction or type of crime. Instead, employers should examine whether the crime for which the candidate was convicted is related to the nature of the job; for example, a conviction of forging checks may be related to a cashier or bookkeeping position and may therefore be a bar to employment. Employers should also consider the individual’s circumstances, such as the candidate’s age at the time of the conviction, how much time has passed, and whether the candidate has been able to hold any jobs or complete education after the conviction. In the event employment is denied on the basis of a criminal record, the employer should have a justifiable basis for the denial.