Forget about basketball bracket upsets—the US Supreme Court recently pulled a three- peat in cases ruling against employers. A trend? Not likely but below are the rulings that impact employers, including a decision by the Massachusetts SJC:

Third party who did not engage in protected action has standing for retaliation claim under Title VII

Thompson v North American Stainless, LP
Eric Thompson claimed that he was fired because his fiancée filed a claim alleging sex discrimination. The US Supreme Court held that if the facts alleged are true, firing him was unlawful retaliation under Title VII because he is within the "zone of interests" the law seeks to protect. The Court found that a "reasonable person might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired." This Court has showed support for retaliation claims and broadening the scope of affected employees is the consistent next step.

Wage violation complaints are protected from retaliation whether complaints are oral or written

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Kasten provides a reminder of the importance of trained managers who document employee deficiencies as well as employee complaints. The question for the Court was whether the phrase "filed any complaint" in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 applied only to written complaints. Kevin Kasten complained orally about the location of time clocks that recorded the hours he worked at a Wisconsin manufacturing complaint. Specifically, the time clocks were in an area beyond the changing area where protective gear had to be taken on and off. The company fired Kasten for what it claimed where unrelated reasons and the lower courts dismissed the suit on the grounds that the oral complaints were not covered by the law. While supporting the oral complaint, the Court did not state any oral complaint would satisfy the filing requirement but:

A complaint must be sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable person to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection.

Employer liability can be based on unlawful intent of supervisors who caused or influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision

Staub v Proctor Hospital
This case serves as an entreaty to use caution when relying on information from managers and other employees—and the need for independent investigations of employee allegations regardless of when they are raised.

Staub was a military reservist whose immediate supervisors were hostile to his military obligations. His two supervisors had issued disciplinary warnings. Staub claimed the warnings were based on fabricated allegations because of his military obligation. Based on those warnings and other factors, Staub was terminated by the human resources official who reviewed his file. The Court found that the exercise of judgment by the decision maker (HR) does not prevent the earlier agent’s action from being the cause of the harm and the employer can be found liable for discrimination.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court finds that an arbitration agreement does not block an MCAD complaint

An arbitration claim in an employment agreement cannot bar the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination from pursuing a bias claim. The employer, Joule, Inc., sought to enforce an arbitration clause in the employment agreement and sued the ex-employee after she filed claims with the MCAD alleging she was fired due to her pregnancy. Without ruling on the validity of the arbitration clause, the court found that the MCAD could conduct its own proceeding on the employee’s bias claim, but only with the MCAD as the complainant and the employee as a possible witness. The court did not address the questions raised by parallel proceedings—arbitration and an MCAD claim—and will no doubt rule in the future on those issues. For now, Joule gives complainants two chances to prevail on bias claims: if a complainant loses in arbitration there is still a chance of an MCAD award and vice versa.

The landscape of employer obligations changes continuously. We strive to keep you informed of the changes so you can run your business. Questions? We can help. 508-548-4888 or info@foleylawpractice.com.