Boston Employment Lawyer Blog

Employees will soon gain protection against employers that utilize genetic testing or consider genetic background in making hiring, firing, promotion decisions. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") passed by Congress in March 2008 becomes effective law in the next coming weeks as this New York Times story details:
Law Seeks to Ban Misuse of Genetic Testing. On November 21, 2009, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act takes effect for all employers with 15 or more employees and on December 7, 2009, the Act takes effect for insurers.

GINA forbids certain discrimination on the basis of genetic information and the collecting and sharing of certain genetic information. GINA only allows the collection of genetic information in a few limited circumstances:

(1) If the information is necessary for a certification requirement under the Family and Medical Leave Act or a state leave statute.
(2) If the information is used to monitor the effects of hazardous workplace exposure; or
(3) If the employer conducts DNA analysis as a forensic laboratory.

As science uncovers more and more genetic predispositions for disease, the importance of protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of their genes increases. Without GINA, employers would have a strong incentive to discriminate against talented employees whose genetic background threaten to drive up their health insurance premiums. Senator Ted Kennedy heralded the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act as "the first major civil rights bill of the new century." Without GINA, as genetic screening became more common place, employees with "bad genes" might have found themselves unemployable.

GINA forbids discrimination not only on the basis of an employee or prospective employee's genetic information, but also discrimination based upon genetic information of family members. A "family member" includes an individual's spouse, dependent child and certain other relatives.

Employees should know that, unlike HIPAA and some other health laws that do not allow an employee to sue for violations, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act confers a private cause of action on certain victims of genetic discrimination. Section 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act gives a cause of action to employees and prospective employees who are discriminated against on the basis of their genetic information or whose genetic information is improperly collected or shared.

GINA enables employees to recover lost wages, costs, attorney's fees and, in some instances, punitive damages. The punitive damages provisions have ceilings. For example, if the employer has more than 500 employees, an employee may recover up to $300,000 in punitive damages. There is also a retaliation provision to GINA that gives a cause of action to any employee who opposes a policy or procedure that violates GINA.

Employees who receive commissions based on their work performance may face difficulty in securing payments from employers in this tough economy. Under certain circumstances, however, legal recourse exists to secure payment from unscrupulous employers who attempt to cut corners by depriving employees of legally earned commissions.

The Massachusetts Wage Act, namely M.G.L. c. 149, §148, explicitly defines the term "wages" to equal "commissions" where certain parameters are satisfied:

This section shall apply ... to the payment of commissions when the amount of such commissions, less allowable or authorized deductions, has been definitely determined and has become due and payable to such employee ....

Where commissions are "due and payable" and "definitely determined," the caselaw in Massachusetts makes clear that the Wage Act applies to highly paid executives, and not just hourly workers. In Wiedmann v. Bradford Group, Inc., the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a claim of pay to a professional who had earned an irregular commission which had been held, by the trial court, to have been unprotected. Thereafter, the Massachusetts Appeals Court in Okerman v. VA Software Corp. followed the Wiedmann decision, and explicitly held it was reversible error to dismiss wage claims of highly paid executives claiming irregular, contingent commissions, above and beyond a “healthy” base salary. The Appeals Court further opined that to exclude the recovery of such commissions would "vitiate the entire paragraph in the Wage Act addressing commissions,” and render the commissions paragraph meaningless.

It is illegal for an employer to in any way penalize an employee who attempts to recover unpaid commissions. The Supreme Judicial Court in Smith v. Winter Place, LLC has interpreted this provision to cover internal complaints: “Complaint made to an employer (or a manger of the employer) by an employee who reasonably believes that the wages he or she has been paid violate such laws readily qualifies as" protected conduct.

When seeking to recover unpaid commissions, its important to determine first whether the commissions can be construed as "wages" under the Massachusetts Wage Act, and second to ensure that you are protected from retaliation.

Whistleblowers bringing claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) must contend with another hurdle in getting such claims before a judge or jury. In Guyden v. Aetna, the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling that Sarbanes-Oxley claims are subject to arbitration.

In that case, Linda Guyden worked as Aetna's Director of Internal Audit. At numerous points throughout her employment, Guyden expressed concerns over Aetna's Internal Audit Department, describing it as “ineffective, demoralized, and without independence or objectivity.” Guyden raised her concerns with senior management and advocated the need for an outside audit. Eventually, Aetna agreed to an outside audit to review its internal controls. According to Guyden, however, senior management delayed the release of the outside auditor’s report. Aetna terminated Guyden's employment 10 days before she was scheduled to meet with the company's Audit Committee and review the outside report.

Guyden filed her lawsuit for wrongful termination pursuant to Section 1514A of SOX, which prohibits public companies from “discharg[ing] . . . an employee . . . because of any lawful act done by the employee . . . to provide information . . . regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes a violation of [federal securities law], when the information or assistance is provided to . . . a person with supervisory authority over the employee . . ..” In response, Aetna requested that the court dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement that Guyden had executed.

The trial court agreed and the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, stating:

The primary purpose of the statute is to provide a private remedy for the aggrieved employee, not to publicize alleged corporate misconduct. Although Guyden correctly points out that the broad purpose of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is to strengthen the integrity of capital markets, the whistleblower provision in particular fills a far narrower gap in the law–it protects employees when they take lawful acts to disclose information or otherwise assist in detecting and stopping actions which they reasonably believe to be fraudulent.

The Second Circuit further noted the legislative history surrounding the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act:

Tellingly, and further undermining Guyden’s argument that the public purpose of SOX should preclude arbitration, both Houses of Congress, acting separately, rejected versions of SOX that would have prohibited mandatory arbitration of whistleblower claims.

Although her claim is not lost, arbitration in general favors employers over employees. The Second Circuit's ruling presents yet another sobering lesson for employees: If you have any doubt about the implications of a document that your employer requests you to sign, run it by an employment lawyer first.

Family rights discrimination (FRD) -- discrimination against an employee who serves as a caregiver to a family member -- continues to be a hot button issue in the workplace. According to the Center for WorkLife Law (CWL), there were a total of just 8 FRD cases filed in the 1970s. The number significantly increased over the next several years, with a total of 97 FRD cases filed from 1986 to 1995. Unfortunately, FRD has shown little sign of abatement. From 1986 to 2005, FRD filings totaled 481; an increase of approximately 400%.

While smaller businesses present the highest incidence of FRD, large companies -- even those recognized by Fortune as "Best Companies to Work For" -- have been sued for such discrimination. According to the CWL, the success rate of FRD cases is relatively high, coming in at greater than 50% versus 20% for other types of discrimination cases. Notably, the average award for FRD cases is slightly over $100,000 with a high of $25 million.

Not surprisingly, women are plaintiffs in the overwhelming majority of FRD cases. It is not uncommon for such cases to arise in the context of pregnancy. A recent article featured in Forbes entitled How To Balance Work and Pregnancy, highlights two scenarios of which employees should be mindful:

Be Conscientious
If you do all this and notice your boss is restricting the types of projects you work on or has taken you off the partnership track, address it with him. In the best scenario, the boss is trying to make things easy on you (albeit unfairly). Document all of these changes and then say something to him. In most cases, it's a misunderstanding that will be rectified by your bringing it to his attention.

Be Wary
If it's a more serious situation, such as the boss making offhand comments about your pregnancy affecting your work, continue to document those instances. Also keep note of the change in assignments you're getting. First, go to your boss and ask if there's a problem with the quality of your work. If it doesn't improve, bring all the examples to human resources. Discriminating against someone because they're pregnant is illegal, and most companies will handle the situation immediately.

When in doubt, consult with an attorney who concentrates in employment law. You owe it to yourself, your family, and your career.

One of the most egregious fact patterns in a race discrimination case has presented itself against NASCAR. Maurica Grant, 32-year-old black female, worked as a technical inspector from January 2005 until her termination in October 2007. During her employment, Grant was allegedly subjected to a panoply of racially hostile and offensive conduct, which included:

• Being called "Nappy Headed Mo" and "Queen Sheba" by her co-workers
  
• Being told she worked on "colored people time"
• Enduring references to the Ku Klux Klan made by one particular race official
• Being asked, "Does your workout include an urban obstacle course with a flat-screen TV on your back?"
• Being forced to work outside more often than white male officials because her supervisors believed she couldn't sunburn because she was black
• Being instructed to duck as she passed race fans in the backseat of a carpool with one race official stating, "I don't want to start a riot when these fans see a black woman in my car"
• Being told, "Keep smiling and pop your eyes out 'cause we can't see you."
• Being accused of being gay when she rejected the sexual advances of co-workers

NASCAR terminated Grant approximately two months after she complained about how she was treated. For more information, please visit the Chicago Tribune article entitled, Mauricia Grant, NASCAR.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently finished prosecuting a case involving severe sexual harassment as well as gender and race discrimination against New York's landmark restaurant, Tavern on the Green. According to the EEOC, Tavern on the Green subjected female, black, and Hispanic employees to continual lewd and degrading conduct. Female employees were forced to endure demands for sexual acts as well as various forms of groping and inappropriate touching. Black and Hispanic employees experienced racial epithets and ridicule for their accents. The EEOC's evidence also suggested that Tavern on the Green retaliated against employees who attempted to assert their rights.

The EEOC, which brought the suit on behalf of 50 employees, was successful in securing a settlement of $2.2 million. As part of the settlement, Tavern on the Green is also required to establish a telephone hotline for employees to report discrimination complaints. In its Press Release, EEOC New York District Director Spencer H. Lewis made clear the duty that employers owe to their workers:

This case should remind employers to take seriously allegations of harassment and retaliation, especially where managers in positions of authority are involved in the misconduct.

According to Professor Marcia McCormick of Cumberland School of Law (Samford University), the lawsuit signified a victory for the EEOC's EEOC's E-RACE Initiative (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment), which was launched in 2008 to eliminate race discrimination from the workplace by enhancing public awareness and through litigating unlawful employment practices.

For more information, please visit the New York Times' article entitled, Tavern on the Green to Pay $2.2 Million to Settle Harassment Claim.

Employees recently scored two major victories before the United States Supreme Court. Both cases involved allegations of workplace discrimination. In each case, the Supreme Court recognized an employee's right to bring claims for retaliation where reports of unlawful discrimination result in a backlash by the employer.

In Gomez-Perez v. Potter, Myrna Gómez-Pérez worked as a clerk for the United States Postal Service in Puerto Rico. During her employment, Gómez alleged that she was subject to retaliatory treatment after filing an age discrimination complaint against her supervisors under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The federal district court of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment to USPS, reasoning that the United States had not waived sovereign immunity as to retaliation claims under the ADEA. Gómez appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which disagreed on the sovereign immunity issue but dismissed the retaliation on the basis that the ADEA does not recognize such claims by federal employees.

In CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, Hendrick Humphries, who is African-American, worked as an associate manager at Cracker Barrel. Following his termination, Humphries filed suit based on race discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The main issue was whether Section 1981 recognizes a claim for retaliation. While Humphries lost his case in federal district court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 1981 protects against retaliation.

In both cases, the Supreme Court refused to restrict employee rights, and affirmed the viability of workplace retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. For more information about the Supreme Court's decisions, please visit the New York Times article entitled, Justices Favor Workers in Cases of Bias Retaliation.

WHDH-TV (Channel 7) is in the midst of defending an age discrimination claim. In a lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court, former WHDH reporter, Michael Macklin, claims the station fired him last year after he complained of age discrimination. Macklin had been with the station for 13 years.

The suit alleges that the station's news director, Linda Miele, reduced Macklin's shifts beginning in January 2006 while simultaneously hiring several younger reporters. Just this week, WHDH announced that it would replace long-time anchor Jonathan Hall, who is in his late 40s, with Adam Williams, who is 27 years old. Hall will join the investigative unit.

Macklin's suit seeks reinstatement, compensation, attorney's fees, and court costs. To read more about Macklin's suit, please visit the Boston Globe article entitled, Macklin sues Ch. 7 for age discrimination.

One of Boston's largest defense law firms finds itself in the same position as its clients: defending a lawsuit. In December 2007, Kamee Verdrager filed a gender discrimination and retaliation Charge of Discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) against Mintz Levin. Ironically, Ms. Verdrager is an associate in Mintz Levin's employment law department where she defends claims brought against employers.

In her Charge, Ms. Verdrager details the repeated instances of gender bias that she allegedly experienced since the start of her employment in 2004. The Charge names Mintz Levin as a firm and also the following partners on an individual basis: David Barmak, Robert Gault, and Donald Schroeder.

Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly reported on this case in an article entitled, Mintz, Levin associate hits firm with MCAD bias complaint. According to the article, Mintz Levin is no stranger to gender discrimination allegations:

In 2005, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a jury had acted permissibly on the evidence in finding that Mintz, Levin's Reston, Va., office had retaliated against a female employee, attorney Dawn M. Gallina — by deferring a pay increase and ultimately terminating her — because of her continued complaints of gender discrimination.

Given the factual issues at stake and the need for extensive discovery, we expect this case to be pulled out of the MCAD and wind up in Superior Court. To learn more about the MCAD process, please visit our post entitled, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) Issues Probable Cause Finding in Handicap Discrimination Case.

Workplace discrimination complaints by employees against private employers to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rose by 9% last year, signifying the largest annual increase since the early 1990s. The EEOC reported that complaints increased to 75,768 during the 2006 budget year, up from 75,428 in the previous year. Discrimination complaints based on race, retaliation, and sex were the most common. Below is an overview:

• Race discrimination complaints totaled 27,238; about 35.9% of all EEOC filings

• Sex discrimination complaints totaled 23,247; about 30.7% of all EEOC filings

• Retaliation complaints totaled 22,555; about 29.8% of all EEOC filings

• Handicap discrimination complaints totaled 15,625; about 20.6% of all EEOC filings

• Age discrimination complaints totaled 13,569; about 17.9% of all EEOC filings

• Sexual harassment complaints totaled 12,025; about 15% of all EEOC filings

• National origin discrimination complaints totaled 8,327; about 11% of all EEOC filings

• Religious discrimination complaints totaled 2,541; about 3.4% of all EEOC filings

(It is not uncommon for employees to suffer more than one type of discrimination, which is why the total exceeds 100%)

Age discrimination and handicap discrimination complaints recorded double-digit percentage increases. Complaints about discrimination based on pregnancy also rose by 14% to 5,587. In 2006, the EEOC was successful in recovering $274 million in compensation for employees reporting discrimination. The Washington Post reported on these figures in an article entitled, Job Discrimination Filings Rise in 2006

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important opinion last week in Allen v. Administrative Review Board clarifying the definition of protected conduct under Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act. SOX prohibits a publicly-traded company from retaliating against an employee who reports information to a supervisor “regarding any conduct which the employee reasonably believes constitutes" various types of fraud (mail, wire, bank or securities fraud), a violation of any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a violation of any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.

Although the Fifth Circuit in Allen held that the employees did not engage in protected conduct, the opinion provided guidance on what exactly constitutes such conduct. Among other things, the court opined that an employee's whistleblowing activity must be “definitively and specifically” related to prohibited conduct defined under §1514A ; the whistleblower's belief of improprieties will be scrutinized under both the subjective and objective standards; a whistleblower's mistaken, but reasonable, belief that an employer engaged in prohibited conduct still constitutes protected activity.

A whistleblower under SOX will need to also show a nexus between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action. Suspicious timing is typically sufficient to carry this burden. In Collins v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., the District Court of Georgia held that a two-week temporal proximity between reporting improprieties and termination is sufficient to suggest that the employee's protected activity was a contributing factor to unfavorable personnel action. The Company may only avoid liability where it demonstrates by “clear and convincing” evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of the employee's protected conduct.