Client Alert - Employment Law Update
United States Supreme Court Weighs in on Age Discrimination Issues
The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided two cases concerning employment discrimination. Within the span of a few days, the Court issued two opinions addressing the administrative prerequisites for filing such lawsuits, and the use of evidence in them. The decisions are both employee-friendly, and underscore the importance of guarding against discrimination claims in the first place.
What Constitutes a Charge under the ADEA?
In the case of Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), four couriers brought claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after Federal Express instituted a new performance program. The employees alleged that the new program, which created performance standards such as the number of stops per day, was part of a plan to force out older workers. As with other statutory schemes, the ADEA requires employees to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before filing suit. However, only one of the four couriers filed anything with the EEOC, and there was a question about the sufficiency of what was filed.
The Supreme Court adopted the broad definition of "charge" used by the EEOC, and held that in order to constitute a charge, a document must identify the charged party, contain an allegation of discrimination, and be reasonably construed as a request for the EEOC to take remedial action. The Court did potentially limit the scope of its ruling by noting that the definition of charge under the ADEA may not be the same as under other statutes, even if the EEOC applies the same definition. Nevertheless, the practical effect of this decision is that more charges will proceed through the legal process, and could result in increased litigation for employers.
Is "Me Too" Evidence Admissable?
In the separate case of Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (Feb. 26, 2008), the Court evaluated the relevance of so-called "me too" evidence. This is evidence in the form of testimony by other employees, who are not parties to a suit, but who claim to have also been discriminated against by managers that played no role in the action challenged by the plaintiff. Interpretting two Federal Rules of Evidence, the Supreme Court determined that such testimony was potentially relevant.
The case involved a former manager at Sprint who, at the age of 51, was terminated in a company-wide reduction in force, affecting nearly 15,000 employees. She sought to use the testimony of five employees, who believed that they, too, had been discriminated against, but by supervisors other than the plaintiff's. However, the trial court excluded the evidence, in part, because none of the claims involved the plaintiff's supervisor. The appellate court reversed the trial judge's evidentiary ruling, finding that it had wrongly applied a blanket rule against such evidence.
The Supreme Court was not so sure that the trial court had applied a blanket prohibition, but noted that to do so would have constituted error. It went on to chastise both the trial court for an ambiguous ruling, and the appellate court for overstepping its procedural bounds. Ultimately, such evidence may be relevant, but it is for trial courts to determine by weighing various factors including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff's circumstances and theory of the case.
These decisions make it easier to maintain age discrimination actions, and broaden the scope of admissable evidence in certain cases. This places a renewed importance on avoiding claims in the first place. If you would like more information about how to minimize the risks associated with your employment decisions, or would like counsel concerning your employment policies and practices in general, please contact Mr. Gonzalez at 312-558-9779 or at egonzalez@elvisgonzalezltd.com.
|
|