Advertisement

The Right to Fire on Performance

Firing Without Fear of Lawsuits
  • Jonathan T. Hyman

Abstract

Just as employers want to be able to hire on ability, they also want to be able to fire on performance. Yet there exist myriad laws that alter the at-will nature of the employment relationship and affect an employer’s capacity to make firing decisions. most notably, an employer cannot terminate an employee on account of their race, sex, religion, national origin, religion, age, or disability. Moreover, some states and localities impose additional restrictions, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, military status, and family status. Additionally, the common law of many states imposes additional restrictions on firing based on a given state’s public policy.

Keywords

Gender Identity Federal Court Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Adverse Action Discrimination Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McDonnell Douglas is one of the three methods available to aggrieved employees to establish discrimination. plaintiffs can also rely on direct evidence (a statement by a decision maker that the employee’s protected characteristic was the reason for the adverse action), or a mixed-motive (that the employer was motivated both an illegitimate purpose, even if it also had a legitimate reason for the adverse action). These tests, however, are largely academic and of interest to the practitioner proving, or disproving, a discrimination. What is important to the business, though, is how it can properly terminate an employee without stepping in a mess of liability, regardless of the legal test involved.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    667 F.3d 835, 863 (7th Cir. 2012) (Wood, concurring).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Id. at 762.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen v. Dow Chemical, 580 F.3d 394, 400 n.4 (6th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 us 184, 197, 84 s. Ct. 1676, 12 L Ed. 2d 793 (1964) (stewart, J., concurring).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    509 us 502, 511, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    280 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Id. at 592.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, inc., 274 F.3d 1106, 1117 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Case no. 11-5102, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7770 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2012).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Id. at *22-23 (quoting) Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702, 708 (6th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    494 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Id. at 544-545.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Case No. 09-5786, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17412 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2011).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Id. at*32-33.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Case No. 09-5786, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17412 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2011).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    496 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Id. at 598-600.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Id. at 285-286.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    More on these accommodation rules in Chapter 8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    490 us 228, 109 s. Ct. 1775, 104 l. ed. 2d 268 (1989).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Id. at 250.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    EEOC Agency No. ATF-2011-00751, Appeal No. 0120120821 (Apr. 20, 2012).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Id. at pp. 6, 12, 14.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Id. at 572, 575.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    401 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2005).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    577 F.Supp.2d 293 (D.D.C. 2008).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Id. at 306.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Case no. 1:11-CV-2674, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114197 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2012).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Id. at * 13-15 (quoting) Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757, 764 (6th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    sixteen states and the district of Columbia have statutes that protect against both sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment in the public and private sector: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The states that ban sexual orientation discrimination in employment by statute are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, VerMont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Four states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public employment only: Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania. Five states prohibit discrimination in public employment based on sexual orientation only: Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio. Five states have an executive order, administrative order, or personnel regulation prohibiting discrimination in public Employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity: indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Three states prohibit discrimination based on gender identity in public employment only: Delaware, Maryland, and new york.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 560 F.3d 647, 650 (7th Cir. 2009).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brewer v. Board of Trustees of University of Illinois, 479 F.3d 908, 917-18 (7th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    562 US_, 131 s. Ct. 1186, I79 L. Ed. 2d 144(2011).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Id. at 1194.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Id. at 1193.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Id. at 1191.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    686 F.3d 339 (6th Cir. 2012)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Id. at 351-353.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Case no. 1: 10-CV-01439, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24372 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2011).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Id. at*17.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Working Mother, “2009 Working mother 100 Best Companies,” http://www.workingmother.com/work-life-balance/2009/08/novartis-pharmaceuticals.
  46. 46.
    Cleveland plain dealer, Karl Turner, “Akron woman wins discrimination case,” http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/05/akron_woman_wins_discriminatio.html, may 25, 2007.
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49.
    indeed, the 2007, the New York Times listed “maternal profiling” as one of its buzzwords of the year. It defined the terms as, “Employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children.” The new york Times, g. Barrett, “All We are Saying,” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/weekinreview/23buzzwords.html., December 23, 2007.
  50. 50.
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/caregiver-best-practices.html.
  51. 52.
    Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 610 p.2d 1330, 1336 (Cal. 1980).Google Scholar
  52. 53.
    956 N.E.2d 825 (ohio 2011).Google Scholar
  53. 54.
    Id. at 830-31.Google Scholar
  54. 55.
    Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., (Ohio 2011).Google Scholar
  55. 56.
    Chapman v. Adia Servs., Inc., (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    Newcomb v. Hostetler Catering, Case. no. 2006CA0040, 2007-Ohio-361 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2007).Google Scholar
  57. 58.
    Zajc v. Hycomp, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2007); Harless v. First Nat’l Bank, 246 s.e.2d 270 (W. Va. 1978).Google Scholar
  58. 59.
    Nees v. Hocks, 536 p.2d 512 (Or. 1975).Google Scholar
  59. 60.
    Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 611 F.2d 1363 (3d Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  60. 61.
    Trombetta v. Detroit, T. & I.R.R., 265 N.W.2d 385 (mich. Ct. App. 1978).Google Scholar
  61. 62.
    Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 344 p.2d 25 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959).Google Scholar
  62. 63.
    Gabler v. Holder & Smith Inc., 11 p.3d 1269 (okla. Civ. App. 2000).Google Scholar
  63. 64.
    Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, 879 p.2d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).Google Scholar
  64. 65.
    Case no. 11-1988, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18397 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012).Google Scholar
  65. 66.
    Id. at*5,12.Google Scholar
  66. 67.
    See, e.g., Burris v. City of Phoenix, 875 p.2d 1340, 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993); Williams v. Dub Ross Co., 895 p.2d 1344, 1346–47 (Okla. Civ. App. 1995); see also Mintz v. Bell Atl. Sys. Leasing Int’l, 905 p.2d 559, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (no tort for wrongful failure to promote); Welsh v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 713 N.E.2d 679, 682-83 (III. App. Ct. 1999) (refusing to recognize a tort claim for retaliatory demotion because the employment was not actually terminated).Google Scholar
  67. 68.
    There were nearly 100,000 charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC in 2011 alone. equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Charge Statistics FY1997 Through FY 2011,” http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm.
  68. 69.
    Ohio is one of the exceptions. In Ohio, employees can proceed straight to court without first engaging in any agency proceedings. And, as if this circumvention of the administrative process is not bad enough, employees have up to six years to file a lawsuit for any prohibited discrimination except age, which carries a 180-day limit. Compare this six-year limit to the 300 days an employee has to file a charge with EEOC, and you can begin to understand the difficulties employers can face predicting and accounting for lawsuits by ex-employees.Google Scholar
  69. 70.
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i).Google Scholar
  70. 71.
    for example, under the rules of the state courts in which I primarily practice—Ohio—a defendant has 28 days to respond to a complaint. Ohio Civ. r. 12(A)(1).Google Scholar
  71. 72.
    28U.S.C.§ 1446(b)(1).Google Scholar
  72. 73.
    Case No. 08-4548, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27377 (6th Cir. dec, 14, 2009).Google Scholar
  73. 74.
    Id. at * 16-18.Google Scholar
  74. 75.
    502 F.3d 496 (6th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
  75. 76.
    Id. at 503 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jonathan T. Hyman 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan T. Hyman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations