Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Federal circuits are currently split on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation falls within the scope of discrimination based on sex (and therefore within the scope of Title VII’s prohibition). On February 26, 2018, the en banc Second Circuit Court of Appeals found in Zarda v. Altitude Express that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex does in fact cover discrimination based on sexual orientation, overturning its own precedent holding from almost twenty years prior. This result signals increased viability for challenges advocating a broader interpretation of Title VII to remedy sexual orientation discrimination, as well as a potential pushback by the Jeff Sessions-helmed Justice Department as these challenges arise.

Zarda involved a skydiving instructor (Zarda) who alleged that his employer (Altitude Express) fired him in response to a customer telling them of his sexual orientation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Altitude Express on Zarda’s claim, finding that Title VII failed to cover sexual orientation discrimination, and that Zarda failed to establish the type of gender-stereotyping claim covered by the act. The District Court considered itself bound by the Second Circuit’s 17-year-old decision in Simonton v. Runyon, and held that, absent an en banc review by the Second Circuit reversing Simonton, Second Circuit precedent required dismissal. Zarda appealed the summary judgment to the Second Circuit, which granted an en banc review. Writing the majority opinion, Judge Robert Katzmann wrote in the majority opinion that sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves sex discrimination, as it means discrimination against someone based on their own sex in relation to the sex of those to whom they are sexually attracted. Katzmann noted that although Congress had not sought to address sexual orientation discrimination in Title VII, laws like Title VII “often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils,” which in this case included sexual orientation discrimination. The Second Circuit thus reversed Simonson, vacated the summary judgment, and remanded the Title VII claim to the District Court.

By allowing such a claim to proceed under Title VII, the Second Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit, which found last April that Title VII covers sexual orientation discrimination in its decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana. Hively concerned an adjunct professor who alleged that her employer passed her up for full employment because she was openly gay. Hively argued that she faced discriminated for failing to conform to female stereotypes, and because she publicly identified as a lesbian. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the summary judgment in favor of her employer. It found that “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination” and that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth
Continue Reading Developments in Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claims under Title VII

On December 22, 2017 President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (officially Public Law no. 115-97, named “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018”). Recognized generally for changes to the individual income tax brackets, the corporate tax cuts, and the estate tax modification, a separate section, 13307, likely will have a significant impact on sexual harassment settlements.

Senator Bob Menendez (D- NJ) proposed the Weinstein tax exclusion (above) in direct response to the #MeToo movement after the sexual harassment revelations about Harvey Weinstein. The provision was added to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to restrict tax deductibility of sexual harassment settlements associated with nondisclosure agreements. Such agreements were reported in connection with Harvey Weinstein, Fox News, and other high profile cases.

Section 13307 modified the IRS Tax Code section 162 to eliminate the ability of businesses and defendants (and possibly plaintiffs) to deduct the costs associated with settlements of sexual harassment claims that are subject to nondisclosure agreements, including legal fees related to the settlements. Because most settlements related to sexual harassment have included confidentiality or nondisclosure language, the impact of this legislation will be significant for all parties involved, and will be reflected in advice from legal counsel. The provision applies to any payments made on or after December 22, 2017 and is not retroactive, except to the extent it affects payments left to be paid after December 22, 2017 on any prior settlement agreement.

The statutory language does not provide definitions for the terms “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse.” The statutory language also does not clarify the meaning of “related to” for the purposes of settlement or legal fees. This ambiguity leaves several important open questions:

• An employment dispute that does not involve claims of sexual harassment but results in a nondisclosure agreement that includes broad releases may be problematic. If the scope of the releases includes sexual harassment claims, can that settlement be deducted by the business?

• What if a plaintiff has multiple claims, including but not limited to retaliation, gender discrimination, and a sexual harassment claim; what portions of a settlement payment will be deductible? Could effective contract drafting allocate most of the settlement consideration to the non-sexual harassment claims and thereby affect deductibility?

• In settling multiple claims, should counsel draft two separate agreements, one dealing only with the sexual harassment claim and the other agreement with all remaining claims, and allocating the larger portion of the settlement consideration to the nonsexual harassment claim, which is deductible?

• Does the statute exclude all legal fees associated with the claim from deduction, or just the portion of fees associated with the negotiation of the settlement and the drafting and execution of a settlement agreement?

Until more clarity is provided by administrative rules, legislative changes, or court opinions, lawyers will have an important role advising clients how to modify previous boilerplate nondisclosure settlement
Continue Reading Death, Taxes, and Sexual Harassment: How the #MeToo Movement Affected Trump’s Tax Bill

In a recent decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) clarified the scope of personal liability for investors and board members under the Commonwealth’s Wage Act, as codified at G.L. c. 149, §§148-150.  The SJC held that investors and board members could not be held personally liable solely by virtue of their investment activity or acts performed in their official capacity as board members.  While the case involved a nuanced set of facts aptly described as “unusual and removed from the core concerns of the Wage Act,” its holding is nonetheless significant, and provides guidance for personal liability under the Wage Act for individuals other than a company’s president or treasurer.

In Segal v. Genitrix, LLC, 478 Mass. 551 (2017), H. Fisk Johnson and Stephen Rose, two former board members of Genitrix, LLC, sought direct appellate review of an adverse jury verdict that found them personally liable for failing to pay wages owed to the company’s former president and CEO, Andrew Segal.  Johnson, Rose, and Segal founded the biotech company, originally a Maryland LLC, in 1997.  Johnson briefly served as a board member during Genitrix’s opening year, but continued to invest in the company until its dissolution in 2007.  Johnson designated Rose as his appointee to the board and advised Segal that Rose was to be his contact for any financial matters.

As a condition to Johnson’s initial investment, he required Segal to execute an employment agreement with Genitrix.  The agreement stipulated that Segal would receive a fixed salary in consideration for his service as the company’s president and CEO, including managing the day-to-day financial and administrative affairs of the company.  Segal, the company’s sole officer, supervised the laboratory, managed all human resource functions, including payroll, and was the only individual authorized to issue wage checks.

The company began to experience financial difficulties in 2006, which led to Segal’s recommendation that the company lay off its at-will employees in order to meet payroll obligations.  In turn, the two defendants invested additional money in the company; however, they earmarked the investment for specific purposes such as funding payroll and replacing lab equipment.  The company’s financial condition worsened in 2007, and Segal unilaterally decided to stop taking his salary.  By mid-2007, the company was unable to make payroll and its board voted to lay off the other remaining employee.  The defendants made a final investment to pay off that employee’s remaining salary obligations and then shuttered the company’s doors.

The company ultimately filed a petition for judicial dissolution.  During those proceedings, Segal filed an array of claims against the company, and also attempted unsuccessfully to block the dissolution of Genitrix, a Delaware LLC.  See Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, et al., C.A. No. 3017-CC (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2009).However, Segal did not assert a claim under the Massachusetts Wage Act.  Notably, Segal continued in his role as president while the dissolution proceedings were ongoing, despite continuing to decline a salary.  Segal’s belief that he eventually would get paid for the work
Continue Reading SJC Limits Individual Liability Under Massachusetts Wage Act for Investors and Board Members

A group of companies that advertised job opportunities through Facebook’s ad-serving platform discriminated against older members of the applicant pool, claims a proposed class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This filing suggests potential liability for any employer that posts jobs via ads that target recipients based on demographic metadata.

 

As Facebook’s roughly two-billion active users view, like, and share content, they give Facebook concrete information about their preferences and behaviors. Facebook’s ad platform leverages this data by allowing advertisers to reach the users most likely to find their ads relevant. Because Facebook also collects information on its users’ demographic factors, such as  age, race, and gender, critics note a potential for discriminatory ad targeting. In a December 20th filing, a proposed class of older job-seekers on Facebook argued that this discriminatory potential came to fruition when a group of employers (including Amazon, Cox, and T-Mobile) used an age filtering feature for their job postings to target younger cohorts and screen out older ones in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA).

Largely in response to concerns about the opacity of Facebook’s ad-targeting, Facebook offers a feature on each ad that allows users to determine “Why am I seeing this ad?” Based on job postings like the one above, class members claim they were screened off from job postings that reached younger Facebook users. Since this filing, Facebook, which was not named a defendant, commented in response to this suit that its ads could be part of a broader media campaign by hiring employers, and that targeting is a permissible part of a diversified hiring strategy. Facebook further noted that its ads are no different from TV and magazine ads, which inherently reach different demographics by virtue of their viewer and subscriber bases.

Several important implications from this filing:

  • Targeting may not equal discrimination, but it can get you sued.

The defendant employers likely share Facebook’s view—that targeting is not per se discrimination. Whether or not this argument prevails, this filing shows that applicants scrutinize potential discrimination in posting criteria as well as in the hiring decision. The plaintiffs argue that Facebook ads are so ubiquitous and pervasive that being screened off from those ads is to be effectively eliminated from the pool. Courts will have to decide whether or not targeting gives rise to ADEA liability, but before the question can be settled, employers accused of targeting will be dragged into expensive, broad-ranging suits like this one if their postings facially preference a certain age.

  • This is bigger than Facebook postings.

Facebook is not the only platform with targeted ads. A 12/20/17 ProPublica and New York Times report highlighting potentially discriminatory employment ads found that Google’s AdSense and LinkedIn ads had the same age-filtering capability (LinkedIn since eliminated this function). Going forward, postings through these and other, smaller ad-serving platforms can expect the same scrutiny by potential plaintiffs and their lawyers. The proposed class
Continue Reading Age-Targeted Facebook Ads Challenged by Proposed CA Class Action

This article is Part Five of our Medical Marijuana and the Workplace: Recent Decisions from New England Courts Provide Significant Protections to Medical Marijuana Patient Employees Five-Part Series. See Parts OneTwoThree and Four for reference.

A federal court in Connecticut has continued the recent trend of New England courts recognizing a cause of action under state law for patient-employees who are allegedly discriminated against due to their status as qualifying medical marijuana patients.  In Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co. LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01938(JAM), 2017 WL 3401260 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2017), the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied a motion to dismiss state law claims by an individual whose job offer was rescinded as a result of her testing positive for marijuana.  Connecticut enacted a medical marijuana act in 2012—the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (“PUMA”), which allows the use of medical marijuana by “qualifying patients” with certain debilitating conditions and expressly prohibits discrimination against qualifying patients by schools, landlords and employers.  See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21-a-408p(b).

Plaintiff Katelin Noffsinger was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2012 and became a qualifying patient under PUMA in 2015.  Thereafter, she was recruited for and offered the position of director of recreational therapy at a nursing facility in Connecticut in 2016, and immediately accepted the offer.

Prior to starting her employment, Ms. Noffsinger was advised that she would need to take a pre-employment drug test.  She informed a representative of the defendant employer that she suffered from PTSD and was prescribed medical marijuana as a qualifying patient pursuant to PUMA, and provided her employer with a urine sample for the drug test.  Plaintiff further advised that she only consumed a capsule of synthetic form of marijuana, Marinol, in the evening prior to bed, and that she would never be under its influence in the workplace.  The day before Plaintiff expected to start work, she was informed that the offer was rescinded based on the fact that she tested positive for the use of marijuana.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging three counts; namely, a violation of PUMA’s anti-discrimination provision; wrongful rescission of a job offer in violation of public policy; and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  The employer removed the matter to Federal court.  The employer’s main defense was that PUMA was preempted by federal statute; to wit, the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).

The Court first addressed the employer’s preemption argument and its underpinnings in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The Court discussed four potential bases for federal preemption by Congress: (1) express preemption; (2) preemption where Congress has manifested an intent to occupy the bounds of a particular regulatory field (“field preemption”); (3) preemption of state law that stands as an obstacle to the objectives of federal law (“obstacle preemption”); and (4) preemption where compliance with both the federal and state law is impossible (“conflict preemption”).  The
Continue Reading U.S. District Court for the District of CT Determines that Connecticut’s Medical Marijuana Law Protects Qualifying Patients from Workplace Discrimination