On Wednesday, March 25, 2015, a divided U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Young v. UPS.  The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, allows an employer to have a policy that accommodates some, but not all, workers with non-pregnancy related disabilities but does not accommodate pregnancy-related conditions. We covered the background of the case here.  The majority opinion from the Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s decision to affirm summary judgment for the employer and returned the case to the Fourth Circuit.

The employer argued that the PDA Act doesn’t require accommodations or special treatment for pregnant employees and that it was, therefore, entitled to treat pregnant employees the same as it treated employees with restrictions stemming from off-the-job injuries.  The employee argued that  employers who provide work accommodations to non-pregnant employees must do the same for pregnant employees who are similarly restricted in their ability to work.  The majority opinion did not find either the employee or the employer’s interpretation of the PDA persuasive.

The majority opinion rejected the employee’s interpretation of the PDA because it essentially gave pregnant employees an unconditional “most-favored-nations” status because pregnant employees would have to receive the same accommodations that any other employee received for any reason.  The majority agreed with lower courts that this was not Congress’ intent in passing the PDA.  Although the EEOC had supported the employee’s position and published guidelines in line with her arguments, the majority stated that the guidelines were promulgated after certiorari was granted, took a position on which previous EEOC guidance had been silent, were inconsistent with positions long advocated by the government, and the EEOC did not explain the basis for the guidance; therefore, they found such guidance unpersuasive.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion disagreed with the employer’s interpretation as well, holding that it would cause the first clause of the PDA to be superfluous and would fail to carry out a key objective in passing the PDA.

The majority laid out that a pregnant employee can still use the McDonnel Douglas framework to prove a case of disparate treatment under the PDA by showing that she belongs to a protected class, that she sought an accommodation, that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work.  The employer may then justify its refusal to accommodate by relying on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, although claims that it is more expensive or less convenient will generally not suffice.  The employee may then show that the alleged legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretextual.  The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to determine whether there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer’s reasons for not accommodating her were pretextual.

The majority did make an interesting note that their holding may be of limited significance because of the change in the Americans with Disabilities Act expansion in 2008 and the EEOC’s guidance that employers are required to accommodate employees whose temporary lifting restrictions originate off the job.  Although the Court expressed no view on the statutory or regulatory changes and although pregnancy is generally not considered a disability but conditions related to pregnancy can be, this could cause employees to raise ADA claims when denied accommodations related to their pregnancies and pregnancy-related conditions.

Employers should carefully consider their policies on how to handle employee requests for accommodations.  Although the ruling did not fully side with either party, it is likely to lead to additional litigation on accommodation requests by pregnant employees.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.  This process requires that employers and employees engage in an interactive process to discuss potential reasonable accommodations.  The interactive process requires an informal dialogue between the employer and the employee in which the parties discuss reasonable accommodations for an employee’s disabilities.  A recent case out of the First Circuit shows that the process does not have to be perfect to be adequate and that both the employee and the employer have to engage in the interactive process in good faith.

In EEOC v. Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc., No. 14-1268, the employee suffered from Type I diabetes and claimed that her unpredictable work schedule as a sales associate was aggravating her condition and endangering her health.  When the employee supported her request for accommodation with a doctor’s note, her supervisor spoke with human resources.  When the employee and the supervisor met, the employee requested a consistent schedule, which the supervisor said she could not give her.  This was a valid decision by the employer as the accommodation given does not have to be the accommodation the employee specifically requests.  Instead of proposing another accommodation or discussing the options, the employee got upset and quit.  While the employee was leaving, the supervisor asked that she reconsider her resignation and asked to discuss other potential accommodations.  The employee refused and left the premises.  A week later, the supervisor again called the employee and requested that she come back to work and they could discuss accommodations.  The employee did not accept this offer.

The interactive process requires bilateral cooperation and communication and, because the employee did not cooperate in the process and was responsible for the breakdown of communication, the court found that the employer could not be held liable for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.   The lesson for employers is that their efforts do not need to be perfect to fulfill their requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act; employers simply need to engage in the interactive process in good faith, be willing to discuss potential accommodations with the employee, and, if appropriate, provide the employee with a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the employee’s preferred accommodation, that permits the employee to perform his or her job.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs. Two recent cases demonstrate the importance of recognizing when religious accommodations might be necessary.

In March 2014, the EEOC published guidance on religious garb and grooming in the workplace. The guidance states that an employee does not have to use “magic words” to request an accommodation and that a request for a religious accommodation may not even be necessary when the religious practice is “obvious.” Of course, the EEOC’s guidance is only guidance and does not have the force of law.

Whether notification to the employer and a specific request is necessary to succeed on a Title VII religious discrimination case will be decided by the United States Supreme Court in the coming year when it hears the case EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch. The case stems from a Muslim applicant who was not given a job at the retailer, allegedly because she wore a headscarf to her interview that conflicted with the store’s dress code, which prohibited headgear. The case was dismissed because the Tenth Circuit found that forcing employers to infer that an accommodation was necessary was too burdensome and that a request for accommodation from the employee is necessary before the employer is required to act on it. The Supreme Court will determine whether that is the correct standard for religious discrimination. Until a final decision is made, employers should be aware of the potential need for a religious accommodation even if the employee does not request it because the EEOC is likely to support employees who bring these kinds of claims.

Another recent example is the January 15, 2015 jury verdict out of a West Virginia federal court. In EEOC v. CONSOL Energy, Inc. and Consolidated Coal Company, the jury determined that the employer had violated Title VII by failing to accommodate a mine worker’s religious objection to using a biometric hand-scanning system that tracked employee time. The employee claimed that he had a sincerely-held religious belief that the hand-scanning system was connected to the “mark of the beast” and the Antichrist and retired instead of using the device. Although the employer offered to let the employee use his left hand with his palm up, the jury determined that it was not a reasonable accommodation.

Employers need to be aware of the need to discuss accommodations for sincerely-held religious beliefs with their employees and their applicants when those issues arise.

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC, 13-1019, the outcome of which will have a significant effect on the EEOC conciliation process and a case we have posted on this blog previously.  The dispute revolves around whether — and to what extent — courts can enforce the EEOC’s obligation under Title VII to conciliate before filing a lawsuit.

The EEOC initially filed a Title VII gender discrimination complaint against Mach Mining in 2011 for allegedly failing to hire or refusing to hire women because of their gender.  The EEOC claims that it filed suit after trying to reach a prelitigation settlement through its conciliation process.  Mach Mining disagreed and asserted as an affirmative defense in its answer to the complaint that the EEOC had failed to conciliate in good faith as required by the statute.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals created a circuit split when it ruled that employers cannot allege as a defense that the EEOC didn’t work hard enough to reconcile disputes before filing suit.  All other circuit courts have held that the adequacy of conciliation is subject to court review, although the standard of review varies between courts.  According to the Seventh Circuit, the failure-to-conciliate defense went against the statutory prohibition on using what was said and done in conciliation as evidence in future proceedings.

During oral arguments, Mach Mining’s attorney suggested that courts be able to conduct a “modest inquiry” into whether the EEOC attempted to resolve a claim of discrimination through conciliation and, if determined that the EEOC had not done so, to require it to conciliate.  The EEOC, on the other hand, does not want the courts to have any ability to review its pre-suit conciliation efforts. Chief Justice Roberts, however, voiced his concern that he was “troubled by the idea that the government can do something that [the courts] can’t even look at whether they’ve complied with the law.”  Justice Beyer echoed Chief Justice Roberts’ concerns by saying that “everything just about” is subject to judicial review. Justice Scalia called the EEOC’s request that its conciliation efforts be exempted from judicial review as “extraordinary.”

The main concern over any judicial inquiry into the EEOC’s pre-suit conciliation efforts is the level of inquiry a court should undertake. This is where the appellate circuit courts differ. The Second, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits evaluate conciliation under a three-part inquiry whereas the Fourth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits require instead that the EEOC’s efforts meet a minimal level of good faith.

Justices Kagan and Ginsberg’s questions seemed to belie a belief that Congress has not put an onerous requirement on what was required of the EEOC in conciliation.  Justice Sotomayor stated that she didn’t “know how you make something that’s designated by Congress as informal into a formal proceeding.” Justice Kennedy stated that Title VII’s requirement that the EEOC try to eliminate allegedly unlawful employment practices “by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion” were “very difficult words” for Mach Mining’s position. Mach Mining responded by stating that “informal” did not mean that the EEOC could do whatever it wanted.

Although the Court continued to ask the parties to give them a rule that would be acceptable to them, neither came up with an answer the Justices seemed satisfied with.  The EEOC initially argued that it should only be required to show that an attempt to conciliate had been made.  Justice Scalia, however, honed in on the fact that the EEOC is obligated to try to obtain an agreement that is acceptable to it but, in order to try to obtain an agreement, you have to tell the other side what you want.  Similarly, Chief Justice Roberts did not like the “just trust us” approach.  The EEOC eventually conceded that the Court could require it to say that it informed the employer of what it objected to and that they had communicated about the issue.

Mach Mining argued that the Court should require that the EEOC reach out to the employer and, if the employer responded that it wanted to conciliate, that the EEOC should have to tell the employer what would be an acceptable offer, which they could legally obtain in court, and how they had arrived at that number.  Justice Kennedy stated that this would be akin to enforcing the good faith bargaining of contracts and labor law, which he referred to as “a morass.”  Justice Kagan called this inquiry “intrusive.”

The decision in this case will have a large impact on how the EEOC conciliates cases prior to litigation and how employers will need to approach such conciliation efforts.  If the Court rules in the EEOC’s favor, it would likely mean that the EEOC could become even more aggressive with its charge to the courthouse with high profile cases, as a lack of good faith or reasonableness would not create a barrier to the EEOC’s efforts to litigate a case that an employer might be more than willing to conciliate on fair and reasonable terms — if only given an opportunity.

On December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service Inc., No. 12-1226, and the outcome could have a significant impact on employers and their pregnant employees.

Peggy Young was a UPS delivery driver. She went out on leave for in vitro fertilization and, when she returned, had lifting restrictions. Although workers who had temporary restrictions from on-the-job injuries, were disabled, or had lost their Department of Transportation certification were allowed temporary alternate assignments, Ms. Young was denied a similar accommodation for her pregnancy-related restriction.   In 2008, she filed a discrimination suit based on the claim that UPS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by refusing to accommodate her pregnancy by letting her perform light duty work. UPS rests its argument on the fact that federal law does not require special treatment or accommodations for pregnant employees, and that its facially neutral policy cannot become discriminatory simply because it does not extend the privilege to pregnant employees.  Under UPS’ policy, any worker who was injured or had a condition that did not stem from work was not accommodated.  Although the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with UPS, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in July 2014.

Interested parties on both sides have weighed in on the case by filing amicus briefs.  Most recently, on October 31, 2014, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a brief supporting UPS that stated that Ms. Young’s interpretation would blur the line between intentional and unintentional pregnancy bias and should not be allowed to go forward.  They, and other groups, have advocated that federal law requires only that pregnant and non-pregnant workers receive equal treatment, not that pregnant employees should get preferential treatment.

The outcome of this case will help guide employers on whether and when employers are required to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees when they provide them to non-pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.  The Supreme Court’s decision could signal a shift in the law and enforcement of law related to pregnant employees that has already been evident elsewhere.  In July, the EEOC issued additional guidance on pregnancy discrimination and accommodations, which stated that employers should offer accommodations to pregnant employees in the same way that accommodations were offered to non-pregnant employees with similar abilities or inabilities to work.  The EEOC’s guidance is not binding legal authority but, instead, the agency’s interpretation of how the law should be implemented.  The Supreme Court now has the option to embrace the EEOC’s more expansive interpretation of the PDA or to reign in the EEOC and limit what accommodations employers are required to give to pregnant employees.  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would require reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, is also pending in the House of Representatives.

Employers should monitor the outcome of this case and, depending on the outcome, review their policies to ensure that they are compliant with the law.

On July 14, 2014, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) issued updated enforcement guidance regarding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as they apply to pregnant workers. The EEOC’s guidance discusses a number of issues related to pregnancy discrimination and other pregnancy related issues and provides insight into the agency’s interpretation of those issues and employers’ obligations under the PDA and ADA relative to pregnant employees. The EEOC also issued a question and answer sheet about the EEOC’s enforcement guidance and pregnancy related issues and a fact sheet for small businesses.

Among a number of other issues, the EEOC’s guidance discusses:

•The PDA’s coverage as it relates to current pregnancy, past pregnancy, and a woman’s potential to become pregnant or intended pregnancy.
•Discrimination based on lactation and breastfeeding and other medical conditions related to pregnancy or child birth.
•When employers may be required to provide light duty for pregnant employees.
•The prohibition against forcing an employee to take leave because she is pregnant and other issues related to parental leave.
•When employers may have to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with pregnancy-related impairments.
•Other legal requirements affecting pregnant workers, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act and Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (requiring employers to provide “reasonable break time” for breastfeeding employees to express breast milk).
•The EEOC’s proffered best practices for employers in handling pregnancy-related matters in the workplace.

The EEOC’s updated guidance provides a clear indication of the EEOC’s position and interpretation relative to the PDA and ADA as they relate to pregnancy discrimination and other pregnancy related issues in the workplace. While this guidance may provide some insight into the agency’s position and likely enforcement efforts, employers should remember that it is merely guidance and does not have the force and effect of law.

One of the more controversial elements of the EEOC’s new guidance arises from the EEOC’s position that employers’ failure to treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work is a violation of the PDA. This becomes problematic for employers who have traditionally reserved light duty positions for workers with restrictions resulting from an on-the-job injury while not providing light duty to employees who have similar temporary restrictions. The EEOC takes the position that the PDA requires employers who offer light duty work to employees who have restrictions resulting from injury on the job to offer that same light duty work to a pregnant employee with the same restrictions.

In light of this new guidance, employers should reevaluate their practices and policies related to pregnancy and pregnancy-related issues, especially with regard to requests for accommodation, and more carefully consider each and every employment action and decision involving pregnancy in the workplace.

A number of courts have traditionally held that attendance is an essential function of most jobs and, on that basis, have found that telecommuting, or working from home, as an accommodation is not reasonable.  Recently, however, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit departed from this traditional notion and held that an employee’s request for telecommuting as an accommodation was reasonable and that her physical presence at work was not an essential function of her job. This recent decision by the Sixth Circuit may present a problem for some employers and may be a signal that other federal courts, such as the Seventh Circuit, which oversees the federal district courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, may now be willing to recognize that allowing an employee to work from home may be a reasonable accommodation.

At issue in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company was whether a telecommuting arrangement could be a reasonable accommodation for an employee in a resale steel buyer position suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”). The employee had formally requested that she be permitted to telecommute on an as-needed basis as an accommodation for her disability. Ford did maintain a telecommuting policy that authorized employees to telecommute up to four days per week, but specifically provided that telecommuting was not appropriate for all jobs, employees, work environments or managers. Ford ultimately determined that the employee’s position was not suitable to telecommuting and denied her request.

In defending against the EEOC’s claim, it was Ford’s position that the employee was not “otherwise qualified” because physical presence at the workplace was an essential job function and that the employee’s inability to demonstrate regular attendance made her unable to perform an essential function of her job and, therefore, she was not a “qualified” individual under the ADA and did not fall within the statute’s protections.

The Sixth Circuit rejected Ford’s argument and, for the following reasons, found that Ford could not show that the employee’s physical presence at work was essential to performing her job:

• The assumption that attendance at the workplace is essential for most jobs no longer applies due to technological advances that allow employees to perform a number of tasks remotely;
• Because of those technological advances, positions that require a great deal of teamwork are not inherently unsuitable to telecommuting arrangements;
• The EEOC offered evidence that cast doubt on the importance of face-to-face interactions in the employee’s position;
• The employee could still conduct on-site visits to suppliers’ places of business if she worked partially or even primarily from her home rather than the employer’s facilities; and
• The employer permitted other resale buyers to telecommute, albeit on a more limited basis.

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that determining whether physical presence is essential to a particular job is a highly fact-specific question and that it considered several factors to guide its inquiry, including the following: written job descriptions, the business judgment of the employer, the amount of time spent performing the function, and the work experience of past and present employees in the same or similar positions.

What Does This Decision Mean for Employers?

Although this decision comes out of the Sixth Circuit, it has opened the door for the EEOC to take an aggressive approach on the issue of whether physical presence in the workplace is truly essential to performing a specific job. The Sixth Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., represents a significant departure from the traditional majority viewpoint that regular attendance at the workplace is usually an essential function of the job. For example, in 1995 in Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Department of Administration, the Seventh Circuit stated:

“Most jobs in organizations public or private involve teamwork under supervision rather than solitary unsupervised work, and team work under supervision generally cannot be performed at home without a substantial reduction in the quality of the employee’s performance. This will no doubt change as communications technology advances, but is the situation today. Generally, therefore, an employer is not required to accommodate a disability by allowing the disabled worker to work, by himself, without supervision, at home. This is the majority view . . . . But we think the majority view is correct. An employer is not required to allow disabled workers to work at home, where their productivity inevitably would be greatly reduced. No doubt to this as to any generalization about so complex and varied activity as employment there are exceptions, but it would take a very extraordinary case for the employee to be able to create a triable issue of the employer’s failure to allow the employee to work at home.”

The Sixth Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., may be a signal to other courts that technology has advanced such that the courts need to re-consider this traditional viewpoint.

With the federal courts and the EEOC beginning to embrace the concept that physical presence at the employer’s place of business is not an essential job function, this may be the beginning of a slippery slope toward requiring employers to consider telecommuting as an accommodation. The question most employers will have is whether such an accommodation is reasonable, particularly because many employers, like Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer, are committed to the philosophy that in-person, face-to-face communication, and interaction fosters the type of collaboration, innovation, and production that is essential to a successful business.

Employers should keep a close eye on how other federal courts address the issue of telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation.

On April 8, 2014, Governor Scott Walker signed into law the Wisconsin Social Media Protection Act (the “Act”). 2013 Wisconsin Act 208. The new law, which went into effect on April 10, 2014, Wis. Stat. § 995.55, prohibits employers from requesting an employee or an applicant to grant access to, allow observation of, or disclose information that allows access to or observation of the employee’s or applicant’s “Personal Internet account,” defined as an “Internet-based account that is created and used by an individual exclusively for purposes of personal communications.”

Specifically, under the new law, employers may not:

• Request or require an employee or applicant for employment to disclose access information for a Personal Internet account or otherwise grant access to or allow observation of that account as a condition of employment;
• Discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee for:
  • Exercising his or her right to refuse to disclose access information, grant access to, or allow observation of his or her Personal Internet account;
  • Opposing a practice prohibited under the Act;
  • Filing a complaint or attempting to enforce any right under the Act; or
  • Testifying or assisting in any action or proceeding to enforce any right under the Act.
  • Refuse to hire an applicant for employment because the applicant refused to disclose access information for, grant access to, or allow observation of the applicant’s Personal Internet account.

The Act does, however, permit an employer to do any of the following:

• Request or require an employee to disclose access information to allow the employer to gain access to an account, service, or electronic communications device that the employer supplied or paid for (in whole or in part) in connection with the employee’s employment or used for the employer’s business purposes;
• Discharge or discipline an employee for transferring the employer’s proprietary or confidential or financial information to the employee’s Personal Internet account without the employer’s authorization;
• Conducting an investigation or requiring an employee to cooperate in an investigation if an employer has reasonable cause to believe that there has been:
  • Any alleged unauthorized transfer of confidential, proprietary, or financial information to the employee’s Personal Internet account; or
  • Any other allege employment-related misconduct, violation of the law, or violation of the employer’s work rules, as specified in an employee handbook, if the misconduct is related to activity on the employee’s Personal Internet account.

(Although an employer can require an employee to grant access to or allow observation of the employee’s Personal Internet accounts for this purpose, the employer may not require the employee to disclose access information for that account.)

• Restrict or prohibit an employee’s access to certain internet sites while using an electronic communication device supplied or paid for in whole or in part by the employer or while using the employer’s network or other resources;
• Comply with a duty to:
  • Screen applicants prior to hiring; or
  • Monitor or retain employee communications as required by state or federal laws, rules, and regulations or the rules of a self-regulatory organization.
  • View, access, or use information about an employee or applicant for employment that can be obtained without access information or is available in the public domain; and
  • Request or require an employee to disclose his or her personal e-mail address.

An employee or applicant who believes he or she was discharged or otherwise discriminated against in violation of the Act may file a complaint with the Department of Workforce Development in the same manner as other employment discrimination complaints are filed and processed with the Department.

Employers should review and revise their policies and practices to ensure that they are in compliance with the Act. For more information about the Wisconsin Social Media Protection Act or if you have questions about whether your practices comply with the new law, please contact us.

On March 6, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that it released two new publications addressing religious dress and grooming rights and responsibilities in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), in response to an increased number of religious discrimination charges filed with the agency.

The EEOC has published a question-and-answer guide and a fact sheet in an effort to provide employers and employees practical guidance for complying with Title VII, which, under certain circumstances, requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants who wear clothing or follow certain grooming practices for religious reasons, unless doing so poses an undue hardship on the employer’s business operations.

The two publications address a number of topics, including examples of common religious dress and grooming practices and when an employer’s duty to consider an accommodation request is triggered, potential claims against employers for failing to accommodate religious requests, tips for preventing and addressing workplace harassment and retaliation against employees who request religious accommodations, and examples of when these requests have posed undue hardship on employers.

If you have questions about religious accommodation under Title VII, please contact one of our Employment Law attorneys.