Category Archives: Discrimination

January 30, 2014

Firing for Off-Duty Medical Marijuana Use to be Reviewed by Colorado Supreme Court

The Colorado Supreme Court announced that it will review last year’s lower court decision that upheld the termination of an employee who tested positive for marijuana but was unimpaired at work following his off-duty marijuana use for medical reasons. As we previously wrote on this blog (see this post), last April, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that using pot during non-working hours is not a “lawful activity” under the state’s lawful off-duty activity statute (C.R.S. §24-34-402.5). Coats v. Dish Network LLC, 2013 COA 62. The Court of Appeals reached its decision by relying on the fact that marijuana use remains illegal under federal law and therefore, medical marijuana use, though legal in Colorado, was not “lawful” for purposes of the Colorado lawful off-duty activity statute.

The Colorado Supreme Court will review two questions:

1. Whether the Lawful Activities Statute protects employees from discretionary discharge for lawful use of medical marijuana outside the job where the use does not affect job performance; and

2. Whether Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Amendment makes the use of medical marijuana “lawful” and confers a right to use medical marijuana to persons lawfully registered with the state.

Over the next few months, the parties will submit written briefs to the Court presenting their positions on these two questions. With the importance of this case for both Colorado businesses and the marijuana industry, watch for additional groups to ask permission to submit briefs advocating their respective viewpoints. Though the case before the Colorado Supreme Court deals with medical marijuana, the Court’s decision could establish precedent that would apply to the legal use of recreational marijuana. We will watch this case very closely and will report on any new developments as they occur.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

December 17, 2013

Colorado Raises Minimum Wage for 2014: Checklist for Complying with New Employment Developments

By Jude Biggs

A new year is just around the corner. Along with champagne toasts and resolutions to lose weight, January 1 typically brings new laws and regulations in Colorado. 2014 is no different. Colorado employers should plan now for the changes going into effect in 2014. It is also a good time to make sure you are in compliance with the new laws that took effect in 2013. Here is a checklist to help you stay on the right side of the law.

Colorado Minimum Wage Goes Up to $8.00 per Hour on January 1. The Colorado Division of Labor has adopted Minimum Wage Order 30 which raises the state minimum wage from $7.78 (2013) to $8.00 per hour, effective January 1, 2014. The state minimum wage for tipped employees increases to $4.98 per hour, also effective January 1, 2014. Colorado’s minimum wage is adjusted annually for inflation pursuant to the Colorado Constitution. If this applies to any of your workforce, update your payroll practices to comply with the new rate on the first of the year.
Marijuana may be Legally Purchased and Possessed on January 1. Adults may legally buy, use and possess small amounts of marijuana in Colorado beginning January 1st. Because marijuana is still illegal under federal law, Colorado employers may continue to have workplace policies banning its use by employees and prohibiting possession of marijuana on company premises. Review and if necessary, update your policies to reflect that use of controlled substances and drugs that are illegal under either state or federal law are not permitted. The new year is a good time to communicate this to your employees.
Rules Implementing Employment Opportunity Act (Credit History Law) Effective January 1. Colorado’s Employment Opportunity Act, section 8-2-126, C.R.S., was enacted last spring and went into effect on July 1, 2013, restricting an employer’s use of credit history information on employees and applicants. (See our post on that new law.) The Division of Labor has adopted new rules, 7 CCR 1103-4, that go into effect on January 1 to implement the provisions of the act. The new rules include a couple of new definitions and clarifications not found in the act itself, including that “consumer credit information” does not include income or work history verification and that “prevailing party” means the employee who successfully brings, or the employer who successfully defends, the complaint. The new rules also describe the enforcement mechanism for violations, including how complaints must be filed, the investigation process, initial decisions and appeals.
Rules Implementing Social Media and the Workplace Law Effective January 1. Last spring, Colorado enacted a law, found at section 8-2-127, C.R.S., that restricts an employer’s access to personal online and social media sites of employees and applicants. (We previously wrote on that law here.) The law went into effect on May 11, 2013 but new rules implementing the law go into effect on January 1, 2014. In large part, the rules, 7 CCR 1103-5, mirror the act itself but add that it is OK for an employer to access information about employees and applicants that is publicly available online. The new rules also detail the complaint, investigation, decision, appeals and hearing process.
2013 Family Care Act Extends FMLA Coverage to Care for Civil Union and Domestic Partners. Effective August 7, 2013, Colorado’s Family Care Act, section 8-13.3-201 et seq., C.R.S., extends leave benefits under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to eligible employees to care for their civil union and domestic partners with a serious health condition. If you are a covered employer under the FMLA, ensure that your FMLA forms, policies and practices provide that eligible employees may take leave to care for a seriously ill or injured civil union or domestic partner. Also, for multi-state employers subject to the FMLA, remember that if you have employees in states that recognize same-sex marriages, the FMLA definition of “spouse” will include employees’ same-sex spouses due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor (further discussed here).
Age 70 Cap on Colorado Age Discrimination Claims Eliminated in 2013. Colorado’s legislature enacted changes to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Effective August 7, 2013, there is no longer an upper age limit of 70 years old for age discrimination claims under CADA, section 24-34-301, et seq..C.R.S. This brings Colorado’s age discrimination law in line with the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees and applicants on the basis of age 40 or older with no upper age limit.
Prepare for Changes in Remedies Available for Colorado Discrimination Claims Beginning January 1, 2015. Colorado added new remedies, including punitive damages, that may be recovered for violations of CADA for claims alleging discrimination or unfair employment practices that accrue on or after January 1, 2015, section 24-34-405. C.R.S. With a year to prepare, now is the time to get policies in place to address reasonable accommodations, complaint procedures and other good faith measures to resolve workplace discrimination issues.

Start the year off right by making sure you comply with these new developments in Colorado employment laws. We wish you a happy, healthy, prosperous and compliant 2014!

For more information, contact Jude at 303-473-2707 or jbiggs@hollandhart.com.

Disclaimer: This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

December 9, 2013

Holiday Party Checklist—Plan Ahead to Minimize Employer Risks

By Mark Wiletsky

Delicious food, fine wines, music, camaraderie, laughter – all ingredients for a great holiday get-together. What could go wrong? Too much, unfortunately. Employees may drink too much, act inappropriately, offend co-workers or guests, hurt themselves or others, or even start a brawl. Depending on the circumstances, your company may find itself potentially liable for the inappropriate or unlawful actions of your employees at company-sponsored parties. You can help minimize the risks associated with holiday parties by following these five tips.

Avoid or Limit Alcohol

Employers face potential liability when providing alcohol at a company holiday event when someone gets hurt due to drunk driving, falling down, etc., or when inappropriate behavior crosses the line from embarrassing to unlawful, such as sexual harassment or violence during an argument. You can limit your company’s exposure for such conduct by either banning alcohol entirely (we know that may not be well-received in some situations), or limiting each person’s consumption through the use of drink tickets or a 2-drink limit. If you choose to allow alcohol at your events, don’t allow free access to the alcohol (e.g., open bar, self-serve beer or unlimited wine bottles). Instead have a professional, licensed bartender serve the alcohol as they are trained not to over-serve patrons. Be sure to offer plenty of food and non-alcoholic beverages. Arrange for taxis or hotel stays if someone over-indulges. Schedule the event during the week so folks are less inclined to get carried away. Set an end time for the party and shut down the bar at least a half hour before the event closes. Do not authorize or condone “after parties.” Finally, designate some supervisors or managers to refrain from drinking alcohol to make sure things don’t get out of hand.

Keep Harassing Behavior in Check

Make sure that your sexual harassment policy is up-to-date and that it applies to company parties, even if held off company premises. Send out a reminder to employees in advance of the party that all company policies, including those prohibiting harassment and other inappropriate conduct, apply to the party. Consider making the event a family party where employees may bring their spouse, significant other, or children as the presence of family members and children often deters inappropriate behavior which could give rise to a harassment complaint. Make sure that supervisors and managers watch out for potentially harassing conduct and are trained to intervene as necessary.

Respect Religious Differences and Keep the Party Neutral

Although many holidays toward the end of the year are religious in nature, be sensitive to your employees’ varying religious beliefs and avoid any conduct that could be construed as favoring one religious group over another. Refrain from calling your party a “Christmas Party” and stick with the neutral “Holiday Party” instead. Do not make attendance at the company-sponsored events such as parties, volunteer activities, food drives or other holiday outings mandatory. Make sure the timing of the company party does not exclude any employees for religious reasons. For example, because the Jewish Sabbath starts on Friday night, a party on a Friday evening may exclude Jewish employees. Avoid decorating with religious symbols, such as nativity scenes, menorahs or angels. There are plenty of neutral decorations, such as snowflakes, holly and reindeer, that can be used instead.

Be Wary of Gift Exchanges

Gift exchanges between employees may seem innocuous enough, but consider the potential issues a gift exchange may cause. Employees may not be able to afford to participate, even within a recommended cost guideline. Other employees may give sexy or “funny” gifts that end up offending others. The best practice is to avoid a company or department sponsored gift exchange altogether. If you decide to allow one among your employees, make sure it is entirely voluntary and no one is pressured or made to feel uncomfortable for not participating. Set cost guidelines and remind participants that gifts must be appropriate for the workplace.

Remember Wage and Hour Laws

If you assign any non-exempt employees to plan, prepare for and staff the party, their hours are likely work hours for which they must be paid. For example, if your office receptionist is required to be at the door of your holiday party to greet guests and hand out name tags, that individual is likely working and you need to include those hours in his or her weekly work hours when determining regular and overtime wages. You do not need to pay employees who are attending the party if their attendance is voluntary and they are not expected to provide services that benefit your organization.

Follow this checklist and you’ll avoid last minute holiday headaches and keep your organization out of trouble.

November 14, 2013

No Age Discrimination Established by “Shelf Life” Comment

By Mark Wiletsky

An HR manager asks about an employee’s “shelf life” in an instant message to another HR manager. Evidence of age discrimination? The employee argued it was, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it was not. In Roberts v. IBM, the Court recently held that the comment did not amount to direct evidence of age discrimination and “was nothing worse than an inartful reference to [the employee’s] queue of billable work.” The employee’s alternative argument that the term “Project Blue” somehow constituted evidence of age discrimination similarly failed.

Employee Terminated For Poor Performance

George Roberts worked for IBM and was assigned to provide technical assistance to one of IBM’s clients, the Williams Companies (Williams). Williams’ employees repeatedly complained about Roberts’ work, resulting in a critical performance review. Although a subsequent review reflected some improvement, he later received more criticism. IBM offered Roberts the option of resigning with a severance package or committing to a 60-day performance improvement program with the understanding that failure to show sustained improvement would lead to termination. Roberts chose to complete the program. Once again, although he showed some improvement, the client continued to complain. IBM terminated Roberts for his continued negative performance.

Absence of Direct Evidence of Age Discrimination

Roberts sued IBM in federal court, alleging that instant messages between two HR managers showed that IBM fired him because of his age. The HR managers were discussing whether IBM should eliminate Roberts’ position because he did not have enough billable work to do. One of the HR managers questioned Roberts’ “shelf life,” which he argued referred to his age. The Court, however, disagreed, finding that the fair reading of the comment within the context of their discussion was that it referred to his workload, not his age. The Court found that any inference related to the “shelf life” comment would, at most, be circumstantial rather than direct evidence of age discrimination.

Roberts then asserted that the name “Project Blue,” which was IBM’s program of eliminating positions that were not cost-justified, constituted direct evidence of age discrimination. Surmising that Roberts believed that “blue” referred to older people who sometimes have blue hair, the Court rejected the argument, stating that the HR department’s use of the color blue cannot reasonably be taken as a reference to anyone’s age, especially in light of the fact that IBM is itself often called “Big Blue.” Moreover, because Roberts was not terminated as part of that project but through a different process months later, the project name could not lead to the conclusion that IBM fired him because of his age.

No Evidence of Pretext

Leaving no stone unturned, the Court then considered whether Roberts’ claim could proceed as a circumstantial case of age discrimination. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, if a terminated employee can establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing the employee. Upon such showing, the employee can still succeed on his or her claim by establishing that the employer’s reason is a mere pretext for discrimination. In this case, assuming (without deciding) that Roberts could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Court held that Roberts could not show that IBM’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating him was pretext.

Roberts’ poor performance was well-documented and even if there were times where his performance improved, the prior improvements were not sufficient to show that later unsatisfactory evaluations were pretextual. Roberts also tried to show pretext by pointing to a handful of other employees for whom IBM received customer complaints but who were not disciplined for it. The Court found that some of the other employees were not similarly situated as they were not supervised by the same HR manager as Roberts. In addition, none of the other employees had the extensive history of performance issues as Roberts. Therefore, the Court held that Roberts failed to establish any sign of pretext.

The Court went on to reject Roberts’ state law claims as well.

Even Informal Communications Can Land You in Court

While IBM won this case, it also serves as an important reminder for managers and human resources personnel to be careful when discussing employees via e-mail and instant messaging. Avoid using words or phrases that can be taken out of context or have multiple meanings. It is sometimes easy to use shorthand or be informal when communicating via e-mail, or text or instant messaging. But such communications are discoverable, and when taken out of context or misinterpreted, they can turn an otherwise legitimate termination into a hotly contested case. To avoid that from happening, train your managers, supervisors and HR personnel to draft all communications carefully and deliberately, even if using more informal communication technology.

October 14, 2013

“Pretaliatory” Firing Recognized as Wrongful Discharge Claim in Utah

By Elizabeth T. Dunning

Does an employee have to actually file a workers’ compensation claim to be protected from retaliatory termination? No, says the Utah Court of Appeals. In the recent Stone v. M&M Welding and Constr. Inc. decision, the Court ruled that an employee who was fired after expressing his intention to file a workers’ compensation claim could pursue a retaliatory discharge claim even though he failed to actually file his worker’s comp claim until eight months after he was fired.

Employee Discusses Desire to File Workers’ Compensation Claim

Terry Lee Stone was injured at a party hosted by M&M Welding and Construction in November of 2009. Within days of the injury, Stone informed the company president that he wanted to file a workers’ compensation claim. The president dissuaded Stone from doing so, instead holding his position open for two months until he could return to work. Upon his return, however, Stone’s hours were reduced. In March and April of 2010, Stone again informed the company that he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim, but failed to do so.

In early May, a customer demanded that Stone be fired, believing that he exaggerated in reporting a spill of contaminated water at the customer’s site. A few days later, Stone contacted M&M to obtain insurance information for his workers’ compensation claim. M&M fired him the following day. Stone sued, alleging that M&M terminated him in retaliation for expressing his intent to file a workers’ compensation claim. M&M argued that because Stone did not file his workers’ compensation claim until eight months after he was fired, his termination could not be in retaliation of the filing. The trial court agreed, awarding summary judgment to M&M.

Utah Court of Appeals Rules that Notifying Employer of Intent to File Workers’ Compensation Claim is Enough

On appeal, the Court pointed to the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Touchard v. La-Z-Boy Inc. which recognized that “retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim violates the public policy of this state; thus, an employee who has been fired or constructively discharged in retaliation for claiming workers’ compensation benefits has a wrongful discharge cause of action.” In Stone, the Court of Appeals extended the basis for a wrongful discharge claim by concluding that conduct short of actually filing a workers’ compensation claim was protected conduct. The Court wrote that preparing a claim, notifying the employer of the intent to file a claim or discussing his claim with coworkers could be sufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge. In Stone’s case, he had repeatedly expressed to the company president and others that he intended to file a workers’ compensation claim so that conduct was sufficient to proceed with his retaliatory discharge lawsuit.

Policy Behind Recognizing “Pretaliatory” Discharge

The Court recognized that a rule that protected employees only after they actually filed a workers’ compensation claim “would create a perverse incentive for an employer to discharge an injured employee as soon as the employer learns of the employee’s intention to file a claim.” The Court found such a rule would contradict the important public policy embodied in the state’s workers’ compensation act.

The Court’s ruling also squares with the conduct that can underlie a retaliation claim under other employment laws. For example, retaliation claims under Title VII can be based on conduct where the employee either opposes workplace discrimination or participates in a discrimination claim, investigation or proceeding. “Opposing” discrimination can include the threat of filing a discrimination charge as well as complaining about or reporting discrimination at work. The Stone decision recognizing a retaliation wrongful discharge claim based on an employee’s expressed intent to file a workers’ compensation claim is analogous to the “opposition” retaliation claims recognized in such other employment laws.

Employer Take-Aways

Employers should be careful when making adverse employment decisions related to an employee who has either filed a workers’ compensation claim or is preparing to do so. Decisions should be unrelated to the claim or threat of claim and should be based on a reason that can be clearly articulated and is supported by thorough documentation. Anything less may lead the affected employee to conclude that the adverse action was in retaliation for the workers’ compensation claim and make it difficult to defend a retaliation lawsuit.

October 9, 2013

Idaho Supreme Court Changes Tack and Applies McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Analysis at Summary Judgment Stage

By A. Dean Bennett

Since 2008, employers defending employment claims in Idaho have faced a higher burden of proof, thanks to the Curlee v. Kootenai County Fire & Rescue decision of the Idaho Supreme Court. In that case, the Court decided that the well-known McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis used in employment cases did not apply at the summary judgment stage, making it more difficult for employers to get a favorable outcome without going to trial. Recently, however, the Idaho Supreme Court changed its position, deciding that the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis did apply at the summary judgment stage, resolving a five-year debacle in which Idaho employers faced different burdens of proof depending on whether employment claims were litigated in state or federal court. See Hatheway v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Idaho, No. 39507 (Idaho Sept. 6, 2013).

Federal Framework Applied to Age Discrimination Claim Under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA)

The McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis has been widely used to resolve a variety of federal employment law claims since 1973. The analysis allows a plaintiff to put forth indirect evidence of discrimination to establish a prima facie case. The burden of production then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer’s actions. If the employer provides such reason, the burden of production then swings back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason is in fact pretext for unlawful discrimination. At all times, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion, meaning the plaintiff must convince the judge or jury that his or her position is correct.

Many state courts have adopted the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis when adjudicating employment claims brought under analogous state laws. In Curlee, the Idaho Supreme Court appeared to adopt the McDonnell Douglas analysis, but went on to rule that the analysis explicitly governed the burden of persuasion at tria, and did not apply at the summary judgment stage.

The Hatheway decision appears to change that. Without specifically mentioning or overruling its Curlee decision, the Court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting analysis at the summary judgment stage of Hatheway’s IHRA discrimination claims against the University of Idaho. The Court reiterated that federal law guides the interpretation of the IHRA and applied the same degree of proof and standards to an IHRA age discrimination claim as is used to analyze discrimination claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Why Employers Should Care

If this all sounds like legal mumbo-jumbo, let’s put it in practical, real-life terms. Employers want to get employment claims dismissed at the earliest possible stage for numerous reasons, including avoiding expensive litigation, disruption to their operations and unfavorable publicity. Following the 2008 Curlee decision, Idaho employers had to prove more of their case early on, making it difficult to get a favorable judgment prior to trial. This prolonged meritless cases and cost employers more in legal fees and litigation-related expenses. Now, with the application of the traditional burden shifting analysis at the summary judgment stage, employers facing employment claims in Idaho state courts will have a better chance of getting employment claims dismissed earlier in the legal process with fewer cases proceeding to trial.

October 4, 2013

EEOC’s Religious Accommodation Claim Fails Despite Retailer’s Assumption that a Female Job Applicant Wore a Headscarf for Religious Reasons

By John M. Husband

Does an employer have to engage in an interactive discussion about reasonably accommodating the wearing of a headscarf (i.e., hijab) in contravention of its dress code simply because a job applicant wears a headscarf to the job interview? No, according to a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that to establish a religious accommodation claim under Title VII, the plaintiff must establish that he/she informed the employer that he/she adheres to a particular practice for religious reasons and that the plaintiff needs an accommodation for that practice, due to a conflict between the practice and the employer’s neutral work rule. EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 11-5110 (10th Cir. October 1, 2013).

In the Abercrombie case, an assistant manager named Heather Cooke interviewed Samantha Elauf, a seventeen-year old applicant for an in-store sales position. Ms. Elauf wore a headscarf to the interview. Though they did not discuss religion, Ms. Cooke assumed that Ms. Elauf was Muslim and that her Muslim religion was the reason she wore a headscarf. During the interview, Ms. Cooke described some of the dress requirements expected of Abercrombie employees but neither she nor Ms. Elauf specifically referred to or discussed the wearing of a headscarf. After the interview, Ms. Cooke believed Ms. Elauf was a good candidate for the job but was unsure whether it would be a problem for her to wear a headscarf since Abercrombie has a strict “Look Policy” that forbids wearing of “caps” and black clothing. Ms. Cooke consulted with her district manager who rejected Ms. Elauf for hire because she wore a headscarf which was inconsistent with the Look Policy.

EEOC Files Lawsuit Alleging Retailer Failed to Accommodate Applicant’s Religious Practice

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oklahoma alleging that Abercrombie violated Title VII by refusing to hire Ms. Elauf because she wore a headscarf and failing to accommodate her religious beliefs because it failed to make an exception to its Look Policy. The Oklahoma court ruled in favor of the EEOC on summary judgment, reasoning that Abercrombie had enough information to make it aware that there was a conflict between the applicant’s religious practice and its Look Policy that would require an accommodation. It emphasized that Abercrombie had made numerous exceptions to its Look Policy over the past decade or so, including eight or nine headscarf exceptions. The parties went to trial on the issue of damages where a jury awarded the EEOC $20,000 in compensatory damages.

Religious Accommodation Claim Requires Plaintiff to Inform Employer of Conflict between Religious Practice and Employer Policy

On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Abercrombie argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because there was no dispute that Ms. Elauf never informed the company that her practice of wearing a headscarf was based on her religious beliefs and that she would need an accommodation for the practice based on the conflict between it and the Look Policy. A divided Tenth Circuit agreed. Two of the three judges on the panel ruled that the plaintiff in a religious accommodation case must establish that he or she informedthe employer of his/her religious belief that contradicts with an employment requirement and the plaintiff must request an accommodation. Because Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie that she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and never requested an exception from the dress code, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment to the EEOC and vacated the jury award with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Abercrombie. The majority stated that it is only after an employer is put on notice of the need for a religious accommodation that it must actively engage in a dialogue with applicants or employees concerning their conflicting religious practices and possible accommodations.

Dissenting Opinion and Conflicting Circuit Court Decisions Set Up Possible Appeal to Supreme Court

The dissenting judge strongly disagreed with his two colleagues on the panel, believing that Abercrombie should not be permitted to avoid discussing reasonable accommodations for Ms. Elauf’s religious practice when it knew that she wore a headscarf, assumed she was Muslim and wore the headscarf for religious reasons and knew that its Look Policy prohibited its sales models from wearing headwear. The dissent noted that Ms. Elauf could not inform Abercrombie of a conflict between her religious practice and its dress code because she did not know the details of the Look Policy or that headwear, including a headscarf, was prohibited. The dissenting judge would have sent the entire matter to a jury to decide if Abercrombie was liable for religious discrimination.

The dissenting opinion points out that other circuit courts of appeal have held that a job applicant or employee can establish a religious failure-to-accommodate claim if he/she can show that the employer knew of a conflict between the plaintiff’s religious beliefs and a job requirement, regardless of how the employer acquired knowledge of that conflict. Unlike the Tenth Circuit, these other circuits do not require that the plaintiff actually inform the employer of the conflict. The stage is set for the EEOC to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the disagreement between the courts to ultimately decide whether a plaintiff must actually inform the employer of the conflict between his/her religious practice and a job requirement before the duty to discuss reasonable accommodations kicks in.

Employer Lessons

This opinion is favorable for employers in the states within the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction, namely Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Wyoming and New Mexico. That said, employers should always be cautious about making adverse employment decisions when it has knowledge or information that relates to an applicant/employee’s religious beliefs or practices.

Disclaimer:This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

September 11, 2013

Family Medical History Request Results in First EEOC GINA Lawsuit

By Dora Lane

Employers may not request a family medical history from employees or applicants, even as part of a post-offer medical examination. In its first lawsuit alleging a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued an employer whose contracted medical examiner required applicants to complete a family medical history questionnaire. EEOC v. Fabricut, Inc., No. 13-cv-248 (N.D. Okla. filed May 7, 2013). Review of this case offers a timely opportunity for employers to review their employment practices for compliance with GINA.

Investigation of ADA Claim Finds Illegal Family Medical History

Temporary employee, Rhonda Jones, worked for Fabricut, a distributor of decorative fabrics, as a memo clerk for 90 days. She then applied to work in the same position as a regular employee. Fabricut made her an offer of employment, contingent on the results of a pre-employment drug test and physical. Fabricut sent Jones to Knox Laboratory, a medical examining facility that provided examination services to Fabricut on a contract basis. As part of the process, Knox Laboratory instructed Jones to complete a questionnaire that asked about the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis and mental disorders in her family.

The examiner conducting Jones’ pre-employment physical concluded that Jones may be predisposed to or already suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome and recommended further evaluation. Although Jones’ personal physician conducted a battery of tests and concluded that she did not have carpal tunnel syndrome, Fabricut withdrew its offer of employment. Jones filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on grounds that she was denied employment because Fabricut regarded her as having a disability, carpal tunnel syndrome.

As part of its investigation of Jones’ ADA claim, the EEOC obtained from Fabricut copies of Jones’ post-offer, pre-employment medical examination. The records revealed the family medical history questionnaire that Jones had been instructed to complete at the start of her pre-employment physical. Finding that the questionnaire included unlawful inquiries into genetic information, the EEOC notified Fabricut that its investigation would look into its compliance with GINA regarding its solicitation of family medical histories of applicants.

EEOC Pursues GINA Lawsuit

The EEOC filed suit against Fabricut in federal court alleging violations of both the ADA and GINA. GINA, which took effect in 2009, makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history, and restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information, among other things. The lawsuit alleges that Fabricut violated GINA by requesting and requiring Jones and other applicants to indicate whether or not they had a family medical history for a variety of diseases and disorders as part of its post-offer, pre-employment medical examination as conducted for Fabricut by its agent, Knox Laboratory, who then provided the information to Fabricut for its use in hiring and employment decisions.

Lawsuit Settled for $50,000 and Additional Relief

Without admitting any violation of law, Fabricut agreed to settle the case for payment of $50,000 to Jones as compensatory damages. The settlement also requires Fabricut to post notices in its workplace stating that Fabricut will comply with all federal employment laws, including the ADA and GINA, conduct two hours of live training for all management and human resources personnel, create or revise personnel policies prohibiting discrimination and be subject to monitoring and reporting requirements for two years.

Review Practices for GINA Compliance

Although GINA has been in effect since 2009, many employers may not be familiar with its requirements and prohibitions. What may have been routine employment practices in past years, such as collecting a family medical history from employees or applicants, may now be unlawful under GINA. Employers should review their job applications, interview questions and any employment medical testing practices to ensure that no family medical history is requested. The regulations implementing GINA specifically state that a covered entity must tell health care providers not to collect genetic information, including family medical history, as part of a medical examination used to determine an individual’s ability to perform a job. 29 C.F.R. § 1635.8(d). In addition, if an employer finds out that family medical histories are being collected, it must take reasonable measures, including not using the health care provider, to prevent the information from being collected in the future.

Under certain circumstances, employers may receive genetic information that it did not request. Such inadvertent acquisition of genetic information is not a violation of GINA. To help establish that genetic information was acquired inadvertently, employers should take advantage of a safe harbor provision in the GINA regulations. When an employer needs to request health-related information, such as to support a request for sick leave or a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the employer should warn the employee and the health care provider not to provide genetic information. The regulations suggest the following language to accompany the request for health-related information:

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) prohibits employers and other entities covered by GINA Title II from requesting or requiring genetic information of an individual or family member of the individual, except as specifically allowed by this law. To comply with this law, we are asking that you not provide any genetic information when responding to this request for medical information. "Genetic information," as defined by GINA, includes an individual's family medical history, the results of an individual's or family member's genetic tests, the fact that an individual or an individual's family member sought or received genetic services, and genetic information of a fetus carried by an individual or an individual's family member or an embryo lawfully held by an individual or family member receiving assistive reproductive services.

When employers provide this warning, any resulting acquisition of genetic information will generally be considered inadvertent and therefore, not in violation of GINA.

September 3, 2013

OFCCP Announces New Veterans and Disability Regulations for Contractors

By Brad Cave

Last week, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced Final Rules that are intended to improve job opportunities for disabled workers and veterans. Whether the rules will accomplish that purpose is uncertain; what is clear is that the new rules greatly increase affirmative action requirements and burdens on federal contractors. Under the new regulations, federal contractors and subcontractors face significantly increased documentation, data collection, recordkeeping and hiring goals.

Key Provisions of New Disability and Veterans Regulations

On August 27, 2013, OFCCP released the content of its Final Rules that change the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act as amended by the Jobs for Veterans Act of 2002 (VEVRAA). Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination in employment decisions against individuals with disabilities and requires federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to recruit, hire, promote and retain disabled workers. VEVRAA prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against protected veterans and requires affirmative action in employing these veterans. The key provisions of the Final Rules that change the regulations implementing these laws include:

A 7% Utilization Goal for Qualified Individuals with a Disability. For the first time, contractors must strive to employ disabled workers at a level that reaches 7% of each job group. For contractors with 100 or fewer employees, the 7% goal applies to the contractor’s entire workforce, rather than each job group. OFCCP states that this is not a quota and failure to meet the disability utilization goal will not, by itself, constitute a violation of the regulation. However, OFCCP requires contractors to conduct an annual utilization analysis to find deficient areas and determine specific actions to rectify identified problems.

Establishing Hiring Benchmarks for Veterans. Without setting a specific utilization goal for hiring veterans, OFCCP will require federal contractors to establish hiring benchmarks each year for protected veterans. Contractors may choose to use the national percentage of veterans in the civilian labor force, as updated annually by OFCCP (currently 8%), as a benchmark, or may establish their own benchmark using a combination of data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service and the contractor’s unique hiring circumstances.

Collect and Retain Comparison Data on Disabled and Veteran Applicants and Employees. Under the Final Rules, contractors must document quantitative comparisons of the number of disabled workers and veterans who applied for jobs and the number hired. The data must be compiled annually and retained by the contractor for three years in order to track trends and measure outreach efforts.

Ask Applicants and Employees to Self-Identify as Individuals with a Disability and as a Veteran. The Final Rules mandate that employers invite applicants at both the pre-offer and post-offer stage to self-identify themselves as individuals with a disability and as veterans. The Final Rules further require that contractors invite their current employees to self-identify at least every five years. OFCCP offers sample self-identification language.

Mandated Equal Opportunity Clause in Subcontracts. Under the Final Rules, contractors must include specific language to incorporate the equal opportunity clause into subcontracts so that subcontractors know their responsibilities as federal contractors.

Provide OFCCP Access to Records. The Final Rules specify that contractors must allow OFCCP to review documents related to a focused review or compliance check either on-site or off-site, at OFCCP’s option. OFCCP can request that contractors reveal all formats in which they maintain records and then request the records in whatever format OFCCP chooses.

Updates to Comply with the ADAAA. The Final Rule related to the disability regulations updates the regulations in light of the revised definition of “disability” and certain nondiscrimination provisions under the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).

Still Burdensome, But Some Proposals Slightly Watered Down

Federal contractors were critical of the many regulatory changes first proposed by the OFCCP in 2011. OFCCP received many comments in response to the proposed rules and made some modest improvements based on those comments. For example, the proposed rules sought to impose a five-year recordkeeping requirement. The Final Rules reduced that requirement to three years. The proposed disabilities rule sought to require contractors to review their physical and mental job qualifications on an annual basis while the Final Rule allows contractors to establish their own schedule for reviewing job qualifications. Despite these and other small revisions from the proposed to the final regulations, the Final Rules add significant burdens on contractors who must revamp their employment policies and documentation practices to comply with the new regulations.

So, Are You Sure You’re Not Disabled?

The new hiring quota for disabled individuals places employers in a very awkward position. For the first time, employers are required to ask and need to know whether applicants and employees consider themselves to be disabled. Under these rules, employers are expected to meet the 7% “goal” by workgroup. But some employees who meet the definition of disabled will not consider themselves to be disabled or be reluctant to disclose their status to their employer. The OFCCP recognized that a study has shown that only about 50% of those with disabilities are likely to self-identify. The OFCCP is not concerned about this high degree of inaccuracy. According to its preamble to the new rules, even inaccurate data which greatly underreports the number of disabled applicants and employees will still assist the contractor and the OFCCP to evaluate the contractor’s hiring and selection process! Stated differently, the OFCCP does not care if the data is faulty by as much as 50% as long as it has some data on which to base its enforcement decisions.

The OFCCP also suggested that employers should designate individuals as disabled, even if they decline to self-identify, where the disability is obvious or the employer knows about the disability. Of course, for years we have cautioned employers to never label an employee as disabled to avoid “regarded as” claims under the ADA. Now, employers who are federal contractors will have an incentive to identify employees as disabled to meet the goal, and have the OFCCP’s permission to do so. In an interesting twist, the OFCCP’s permission for employers to designate employees as disabled was explained in the preamble to the new rule, not in the new regulations. Since the preamble does not have the force and effect of law, the OFCCP’s permission is not likely to have much value as a defense to an employee’s allegation that the employer regarded them as disabled when the employer designates the employee for purposes of complying with this rule. While federal contractors may have little choice if a disabled employee declines to self-identify, it will continue to be very important for employers to keep all such designations strictly confidential and out of the hands of supervisors and managers.

Effective Date of the Disability and Veterans Affirmative Action Final Rules

The Final Rules become effective 180 days after they are officially published in the Federal Register which is expected to occur in the next two weeks. Consequently, contractors have about six months to get policies and procedures in place to comply with the new regulations. Contractors subject to written affirmative action plan requirements are allowed to continue with the plan they have in place on the effective date of the Final Rules. However, the next cycle of their affirmative action plan must be drafted to comply with the new regulations.

OFCCP will be hosting webinars on the new regulations. Information about the webinars and the Final Rules may be found on the OFCCP website: http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/.

Disclaimer:This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.

August 29, 2013

DOJ Will Not Challenge State Marijuana Legalization Laws – New Federal Enforcement Policy Unlikely to Affect Colorado Employers

By Emily Hobbs-Wright

On August 29, 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it will not challenge the state ballot initiatives in Colorado and Washington that legalize the possession and use of small amounts of marijuana under state law. The DOJ makes clear, however, that marijuana remains an illegal drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act. This clarification means Colorado employers may still enforce their drug-free workplace policies and take appropriate action when an employee or applicant tests positive for marijuana.

DOJ Expects States to Enforce Strict Regulatory Schemes

In its August 29, 2013 Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement, the DOJ identifies eight enforcement priorities for federal law enforcement and prosecutors, such as preventing distribution of marijuana to minors, preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal to other states, and preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other public health consequences of marijuana use. The DOJ states that it expects that states and local governments to not only establish, but also enforce robust controls in their marijuana regulatory schemes to meet its federal objectives. The guidance instructs federal prosecutors to review marijuana cases on an individual basis, weighing all available information and evidence but to no longer “consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities . . .” The DOJ further stated that if states fail to develop or enforce a strict regulatory scheme and the stated harms result, federal prosecutors will step in to enforce federal marijuana priorities and may challenge the regulatory schemes in those states.

Courts in Colorado Uphold Employer Terminations for Employee Marijuana Use

In April 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that terminating an employee who tested positive for marijuana following his off-duty, off-premises use of medical marijuana did not violate Colorado’s lawful activities statute. Coats v. Dish Network LLC, 2013 COA 62. Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic who obtained a license to use medical marijuana under Colorado’s Amendment 20, was fired for violating his employer’s drug policy after testing positive for marijuana. Coats asserted that he never used marijuana on his employer’s premises, was never under the influence of marijuana at work and never used marijuana outside the limits of his medical marijuana license. He sued his employer, Dish Network, alleging that his termination violated Colorado’s lawful off-duty activities statute, CRS § 24-34-402.5(1), which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for engaging in “any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.”

The Coats court looked to the plain meaning of the term “lawful” in the statute and decided that “for an activity to be ‘lawful’ in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law.” Because marijuana was, and remains, illegal under federal law, the court held that marijuana use is not a “lawful activity” under the Colorado lawful activities statute and therefore, the employer did not violate the statute when it terminated him for testing positive for marijuana.

Earlier this week, the federal district court in Colorado ruled that enforcement of a drug-free workplace policy is a lawful basis for an employer’s decision to terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana, whether from medical or any other use. Curry v. MillerCoors, Inc., No. 12-cv-2471 (Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, D.Colo. Aug. 21, 2013). In granting the employer’s motion to dismiss, the federal court rejected all of the former employee’s claims related to his medical use of marijuana that resulted in a positive drug test and his termination under the employer’s drug policy. Significantly, the court dismissed his disability discrimination claim under Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute as a matter of law, finding that it was lawful for the employer to discharge the employee under its drug-free workplace policy despite the employee’s allegation that he was terminated because of using medical marijuana to treat disabling medical conditions. Judge John L. Kane wrote “anti-discrimination law does not extend so far as to shield a disabled employee from the implementation of his employer’s standard policies against employee misconduct.” In dismissing the employee’s claim for violation of Colorado’s lawful activities statute, Judge Kane relied on the Coats decision and similarly ruled that because marijuana use is illegal under federal law, the employee’s medical marijuana use was not a “lawful activity” under the statute.

DOJ’s Announcement Should Not Change Workplace Decisions

The DOJ’s announcement of relaxed marijuana enforcement in states that have legalized marijuana does not alter employers’ ability to enforce their drug-free workplace policies. On the contrary, because the DOJ reinforced that marijuana remains an illegal drug under federal law, the analysis used by courts in Colorado to uphold termination decisions based on positive drug tests should continue to apply. Employers should create or revise their drug policies to state that use of any drug that is illegal under state or federal law will violate the policy. Employers then should enforce their policies in a consistent and uniform manner, regardless of the legalization of marijuana use in Colorado.

Disclaimer:This article is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice and are not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.