Employee To Employee Discrimination
In a recent unanimous published opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an employer cannot be liable for discriminatory conduct by an employee toward a co-employee for purposes of a Title VII hostile working environment claim, if the employer promptly imposes discipline on the offending employee that is reasonably calculated to stop the discriminatory conduct. In Erika Bazemore v. Best Buy, Case No. 18-2196, the appellate court affirmed the decision by the U.S. District Court for Maryland granting Best Buy’s motion to dismiss the claim brought by Ms. Bazemore, an African-American employee, arising from her co-employee’s use of a racial slur. The court refused to “micromanage” Best Buy’s disciplinary procedures, holding that, because Best Buy promptly issued the offending employee mid-level discipline in the form of a “Final Write-Up” when it became aware of the conduct, and the discipline was effective in stopping the discriminatory conduct, the employee’s offensive conduct could not be imputed to Best Buy. The court rejected Ms. Bazemore’s arguments that mid-level discipline was insufficient, that termination was warranted and that a store-wide statement that discrimination would not be tolerated was necessary. Significantly, the court’s decision would not necessarily apply in a situation where a supervisor had committed the discriminatory act or where the discipline was insufficient to stop the offensive conduct. If you are an employer facing a hostile work environment claim, please call Luchansky Law at 410-522-1020 to arrange a consultation.
A Lower Hurdle for Federal Employees
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court held that federal employees face a lower hurdle in proving age discrimination than those in the private sector. In an 8-1 decision in Babb v. Wilkie, 18-882 (October Term 2019), the Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and held that, because the plain language of 29 U.S.C. §633a(a), applicable to federal employees, mandates that personnel decisions must be made “free from any discrimination based on age,” a federal employee can prevail in an age discrimination claim by proving that age was but one factor in the employment decision. Thus, even if the federal agency had legitimate reasons for the challenged personnel action, such as, for example, that the employee that received the position or promotion instead of the claimant was more qualified, if age was a factor in the decision, the personnel action is unlawful. An employee in the private sector who alleges age discrimination under the ADEA, by contrast, still must prove that but for the employee’s age, the challenged personnel decision would not have been made. If you believe you have been the victim of age discrimination, please call Luchansky Law at 410-522-1020 to arrange a consultation.