class 11
Federal Anti-Discrimination and Labor Law Study Notes
Class Information
Course: BUS-L201
Class Session: 11
Exam 2: Practice questions will be available by the end of tonight.
Office Hours: Thursday, 1 – 3 pm at Godfrey 3080A.
Review Session: Friday, 2 – 3:30 pm at Godfrey 3046 (Classroom).
Instructions for Test: Similar to previous, students may leave when test is complete.
Module Continuation
Focus: Discrimination in Employment (Title VII: Retaliation)
Discrimination in Employment: Retaliation
Title VII Retaliation Claims Elements
Protected Activity Under Title VII:
Definition: Engaging in activities such as filing reports, participating in investigations, or lawsuits.
Adverse Employment Action:
Definition: An action taken against an employee that negatively affects their employment status.
Causal Connection:
Definition: There must be a direct link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
“But-For” Causation:
Explanation: The adverse employment action would not have occurred if not for the protected activity. Using the case Neece v. City of Chicopee, 106 F.4th 83, 94 (1st Cir. 2024) as a reference.
Scope of Protected Activity
Activities may be classified as either:
Internal: Reporting misconduct within the organization.
External: Complaining to outside agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Hypothetical Case Study: Retaliation Claim Analysis
Scenario Description:
An employee in sales experiences crude language from a colleague and reports this behavior internally. Two weeks later, the supervisor transfers the employee to a less desirable role.
Analysis Questions:
Claim Success:
Likely no; needs to meet the “but-for” causation standard.
Protected Activity Reporting:
Yes, reporting is categorized as a protected activity.
Additional Liability Under Title VII:
Yes, a hostile work environment claim may arise due to inappropriate workplace behavior testimony.
Vicarious Liability and Hostile Work Environment
Evaluating whether the harasser was a supervisor and if tangible job detriment exists for strict liability to hold the employer accountable.
Factors to consider:
Objectively and subjectively severe or pervasive harassment which links to sex.
Vicarious liability exists unless the employer can prove an affirmative defense.
No liability exists without these criteria being met which defines different claims under Title VII.
Module 5 Continuation
Employment Distinction: Employees vs. Independent Contractors
Key Distinctions:
Employer Liability:
Employees: Subject to labor laws, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. Liable for torts performed in the scope of employment.
Independent Contractors: Lesser liability for employer, generally no principal liability for independent contractor torts.
Title VII Application:
Title VII does not extend to independent contractors.
Legislative intent: To address discrimination in formal employment relationships only.
Module Learning Objectives
Differentiate between Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
Justification of pay differentials under Title VII.
Compare Title VII and Section 1981 claims.
ADEA: Protected individuals and claim analysis.
ADA: Employee rights and reasonable accommodation requirements.
Employment at will principles and associated scenarios for exception determination.
Non-compete agreements and federal regulations status.
Employees' privacy rights scope.
Section 1981 of Civil Rights Act of 1866
Scope of Protection
Protects against race, ethnicity, or color discrimination in contracting.
Only supports intentional discrimination; does not support claims for disparate impact.
Expansive text affirms equal rights in making and enforcing contracts as per 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981(a).
Elements of Section 1981 Claims
Plaintiff must be a member of a racial minority.
Defendant must have intended to discriminate.
Discrimination must pertain to activities enumerated in the statute.
Burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show “but-for” causation which is often more challenging than in Title VII.
Enforcement: No cap on damages; lawsuits can be filed without EEOC exhaustion requirement as seen in Weiss v. La Suisse, 260 F. Supp. 2d 644 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
Hypothetical Case Study: Section 1981 Analysis
Scenario Description:
Alex, an independent contractor and member of a racial minority, has his service agreement terminated.
Replacement by a non-minority continues the case of questioning beyond discrimination.
Analysis Questions:
Liability Likelihood:
Difficult due to “but-for” causation complexity; more contextual data required.
Discrimination in Employment: Age
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
Scope:
Applies to employers with 20+ employees.
Prohibits discrimination against employees aged 40 and over.
Claim Elements:
Must show the individual is 40+, suffered adverse action, qualified for their position, and replaced by someone outside their protected class.
Statutory Text:
Outlines conditions that prevent discrimination based on age as defined in 29 U.S.C. Section 623(a).
Defense Mechanisms
Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) may permit age discrimination in certain contexts.
Positive age discrimination is permissible (ex. younger employees) under certain conditions (case: General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline).
Hypothetical Case Study: ADEA Analysis
Scenario Description:
Paul, a 55-year-old employee, terminated during company reorganization while being replaced by a 60-year-old. Remarks from executives regarding needing younger staff could suggest age discrimination.
Analysis Complexity:
Difficult to prove discrimination as the replacement is over the age of 60.
Discrimination in Employment: Disability
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Scope:
Applies to employers with 15+ employees, requiring