Suing Employers for Discrimination Has Become Harder

July 19, 2013
Written by D. A. Barber in
Feature Stories
Login to rate this article
graph: Discrimination Charges - Charges filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
The U.S. Supreme Court also handed down a pair of decisions that severely limit the ability of workers facing racial, gender, or religious harassment to sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Photo Credit: legalexaminer.com

While all eyes were on voting rights, affirmative action, and marriage equality, the U.S. Supreme Court also handed down a pair of decisions that severely limit the ability of workers facing racial, gender, or religious harassment to sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In Vance v. Ball State University, the Court made it harder for workers to seek justice when a superior creates a hostile working environment by narrowing the definition of a “supervisor” to only those who have the power to hire, fire, promote or demote. Now, if workplace harassment comes from a “supervisor” who does not meet the Court's definition, the employer likely cannot be held responsible for the hostile work environment and the worker can only proceed with a discrimination suit if they can show the employer was negligent in responding to complaints.

The case stems from the only African American employee in the catering department at Ball State University who faced racial harassment from a superior who did not have the power to fire or demote her.

In the second case, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Court stripped the protections from retaliation against workers who complain about discrimination. Under Title VII, employers couldn’t dismiss or punish workers for having “made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing” when they witness or experience discrimination. The Court’s ruling gutted those protections by making it easier for an employer to avoid liability by claiming a worker’s shortcomings or minor faults were the reason for any firing or demotions. The burden of proving retaliation now falls on the worker.

This case means the Muslim, Middle-Eastern plaintiff who worked as both as faculty and physician at the University of Texas Medical Center will likely not be entitled to back pay or compensatory damages for a retaliatory dismissal after he complained of racial and religious harassment.

The two decisions were both decided 5-4 along ideological lines.

Tags:
Feature Stories