ILNews

Discrimination cases rising

Rebecca Berfanger
September 29, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As people lose their jobs in a rough economy, it’s obvious that unemployment claims go up – and stay up – as it is more difficult to find new work.

In this particular economic environment, employment law attorneys in Indiana who represent employers of all sizes both here and around the country have also observed an uptick in the number of claims brought to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and at similar agencies at the state and local levels, such as the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, the Metropolitan Human Relations Commission in Fort Wayne, the Office of Equal Opportunity in Indianapolis, and the Human Relations Commission in Evansville.

These attorneys advise their clients about this possibility as early as when the clients start making plans for a reduction in force. Among that advice is to update all job descriptions, and to have a clear and concise explanation about how they determined who to let go. This will help if the issue arises at the administrative level or in court because the employer can better explain the process and the decision to anyone who asks, including the employee, an administrative agency, or a judge, they said.

Kathleen Anderson Anderson

“I think when people have been laid off, they look at what their options are, particularly when they have trouble finding new employment,” which has been the case in the last few years, said Kathleen Anderson, an attorney at the Fort Wayne office of Barnes & Thornburg who represents employers on a number of employment law matters.

“They consider filing unemployment and will possibly consider filing administrative charges at the local, state, or federal agency level. I’m seeing a greater number of charges, but a greater number are lacking any basis.”

Anderson said she thinks this is the case because even though there are more claims being filed at the agency level, there

doesn’t seem to be a larger number being approved. There also doesn’t appear to be a larger number proceeding to trial if the agency determines there isn’t enough reason to find the employer had discriminated against the former employee, or even the person who was an applicant for a job who wasn’t ultimately hired.

Another employment law attorney who represents businesses, Tami Earnhart at Ice Miller in Indianapolis, said she has also noticed the uptick in claims.

Earnhart Earnhart

“There are some cases that are questionable – as in the past – and there are some cases that have more merit than others, but that’s always been the case,” she said.

Earnhart said more people may be making claims because of an increased awareness of the option, such as media reports about high-profile discrimination cases and class-action lawsuits that tend to get more attention compared with cases filed by individuals.

In order to bring a federal discrimination claim, the person will first need to file a claim before the EEOC, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, or a local fair employment practices agency.

If the EEOC finds there is enough information to support the claim based on the information presented, the EEOC will ask if the parties would agree to a mediation. If there is no mediation or if an agreement isn’t reached at mediation, the charge will be investigated. If the employer doesn’t cooperate, the employer may be subpoenaed. If the investigation yields enough information that the EEOC thinks the claimant has a valid claim, a member of the EEOC’s legal staff will decide whether or not to file a lawsuit. Some cases are referred to the Department of Justice.

Chuck Baldwin Baldwin

If the agency ultimately decides there isn’t enough information to support the claim, the claimant will receive a one-page notice of right to sue and dismissal. The amount of time a former employee has to file suit on her own following the EEOC’s decision of how to proceed on the claim depends on the type of claim.

Remedies also vary but can include notice from the EEOC to stop discriminatory practices; job placement, back pay, and/or benefits the claimant would have received if she had not been discriminated against; and attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.

But before a former employee gets to the point of filing a claim, Anderson said employers have been proactive when it comes to their reduction-of-force plans to help the employees understand why they are being let go in the first place.

“Typically, companies will try to keep the higher-level performers, people with skills the company needs, and people who are adaptable, so those folks are clear choices for retention, especially in the first few rounds of reducing a work force,” she said.

But when companies need to make deeper cuts, those are more difficult to make as they tend to affect higher-level employees and some of the better performers, “so it’s difficult for them to understand why they were affected by reduction. It’s also difficult for them to understand the decision is not personal.”

Chuck Baldwin, managing shareholder for the Indianapolis office of Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, agreed this is all the more reason to make the process as fair and objective as possible.

Of the types of cases employment law attorneys are seeing, Baldwin and Anderson said they’re seeing an increase in the number of retaliation, wage an hour, and Americans with Disabilities Act cases.

economyBecause of recent changes to ADA, Baldwin said employees have more they can claim under the act. The new legislation includes not only people with physical or mental impairments, but also further considers how accessible employers are to their employees when it comes to reasonably accommodating their needs in the workplace.

Anderson gave an example of a newer type of ADA case in which an individual was hired and then had trouble doing a particular job.

“The case will come down to what the particular disability or medical condition is and – regardless of the reasonable accommodations that could have been made – if the job could have been done,” she said.

The agency or judge will then “focus on the alleged impairments, what the job was, and how the company could or could not work around it. Some impairments employers cannot work around.”

For instance, she said, if someone claimed to have a back issue and couldn’t lift more than 5 pounds as a result, but the job specifically required the person to lift 5 pounds or more, the person making the claim could have a more difficult case of proving an ADA violation. But if the job requires that particular skill only on a fairly infrequent basis, such as once a month, as opposed to multiple times in a week or in a day, there is a much greater chance the employee could make his case that the company could have assigned that particular task to someone else in order to accommodate the employee who can’t physically lift the required amount.

This is another reason, Baldwin said, that he’s been advising clients to make sure all of their job descriptions are up-to-date, so if someone does make a claim regarding the ADA, the employer will know more quickly if they could or couldn’t accommodate someone – and if they could, then they could do what’s right for the employee.

The attorneys also noted they’ve noticed an increase in the number of age-discrimination claims, particularly among baby boomers who have been losing their jobs.

Earnhart added she expects there will continue to be a number of claims based on gender, race, national origin, and religion.

While it is more difficult to find a new job in this economy, the attorneys also reported seeing some positive signs the economy is starting to turn around.

Anderson said she has had fewer discussions with clients regarding plans for reductions of force. While the companies aren’t necessarily hiring, she said, they are looking ahead to start adding people when they can, while also determining how to more effectively use their current workforces.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT