Recent Federal Cases Go Against Employers
Two recent decisions from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati show how careful employers must be to avoid discrimination claims and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In the first case, Sanford v. Main Street Baptist Church Manor, Inc., the Court found that the employer had not taken sufficient steps to protect against sexual harassment in the workplace. In the second, Hunter v. Valley View Local Schools, the federal appeals court ruled that an employee may bring a claim under the FMLA so long as she can show that her use of FMLA leave was at least a “factor” in the employer’s decision to take adverse action against her.
In Sanford, the Plaintiff-employee sued the employer for an alleged sexually hostile work environment. As a defense, the employer argued that it had exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexual harassment that the employee might have suffered. Normally, if supervisors and superiors take appropriate action, the employer will not be held liable based on inappropriate remarks or comments “on the floor” that might be offensive to other co-workers. But the decision in Sanford makes clear that employers cannot escape liability if they have not taken actual steps to weed out and discourage intimidating or harassing behavior. Specifically, the judges from the 6th Circuit were concerned that the employer’s handbook did not force supervisors to report harassing conduct. Nor did it offer a process for informal or verbal complaints. Nor did it give the employee the option to bring a complaint to someone else in management where the supervisor was the alleged harasser. Finally, the Court took note of the fact that the employer had not conducted any sexual harassment training in the workplace. For all of these reasons, the Court determined that the employer had not shown “reasonable care” to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.
In Hunter, the Plaintiff-employee had returned to work with certain medical restrictions after being out on FMLA leave. The employer forced her to take an unpaid medical leave for up to one year. She sued, arguing that the forced leave was unlawful retaliation for her exercising her right to leave under the FMLA. The employer argued that, even if her FMLA leave had been one reason for forcing her to take unpaid medical leave, it was not the only reason. Because the medical restrictions limited her ability to perform, the employer claimed it had a legitimate reason to require the medical leave.
In a significant ruling, the 6th Circuit determined that a plaintiff may bring a claim for retaliation under the FMLA if his use of FMLA leave was one of the factors that caused the employer to take an adverse employment action – even if the other factors were lawful. Thus, in “mixed motive” cases under the FMLA, employers will not be able to defeat claims simply by showing they had a legitimate basis for their decision where improper bases also entered the decision-making process.
In difficult economic times, employees are more likely than ever to pursue any plausible basis for economic recovery. Employers should review their employee handbook and their employment practices very carefully to minimize the risk of unwanted and unintended employment claims.
Dirk A. Beamer