Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination in the workplace on several bases including race, color, sex, national origin, and religion. Title VII laws apply to all private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies, labor organizations and the federal government if they employ at least 15 employees.

However, where religious employers are involved, the circuits are split.

In a recent decision involving the Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the Tenth circuit determined that a woman’s duty’s as the director of the department of religious formation placed her squarely within the ministerial exception to federal employment discrimination laws. Applying the ministerial exception, as endorsed by the Tenth, Fifth, Ninth, and District of Columbia, a church employee’s hostile environment claim improperly entangles of church and federal law. As a result, these circuits have held that not only are religious employers shielded from hostile environment claims, but all forms of discrimination under Title VII, including equal pay and age discrimination.

Although the ministerial exception typically applies to ministers, the exception covers any employee shown to be important to a church’s “spiritual and pastoral mission.”

This decision is at odds with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in a previous case, Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2004) that a minister’s hostile environment claims against a church may be viable “so log as the church does not claim ‘doctrinal reasons for tolerating of failing to stop the [alleged] sexual harassment.”

The interplay between church tenets and federal sexual discrimination laws continues to evolve, with differences from circuit to circuit – even amongst the courts within a circuit.

Continue reading " Ministerial Exception Applies to All Title VII Claims " »

As the population ages, and the economy continues to languish, more and more older Americans are putting off retirement and continuing to remain in the workplace. While many of these individuals offer long records of experience and maturity, companies often overlook hiring or promoting older employees in favor of their younger counterparts. As a result, age discrimination has become one of the fastest growing types of employment discrimination.

In a recent case, a 68-year-old attorney who was denied a job at a software firm filed a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) asserting that he was “clearly better qualified” than the “substantially younger” applicant.

Similar to other anti-discrimination laws, the ADEA prohibits adverse employment actions against you on the basis of age – including decisions regarding hiring and firing – and protects you from harassment based on your age.

In Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., a company hired a substantially younger candidate explaining that although the older candidate – Moss - had more extensive legal experience, the successful candidate had greater familiarity and expertise with specific transactions that formed the majority of the job. Moss asserted that the company’s reasons for hiring the younger candidate were mere pretense and that and his age was a “motivating factor” in the company’s decision not to hire him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected these arguments and granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, noting that the “motivating factor” standard is not applicable to ADEA cases. Unlike Title VII discrimination, under the ADEA plaintiffs must prove age was a “but for” cause of an adverse employment action.

In granting the summary judgment motion, the court stated that the employee failed to show direct discrimination and would not “second-guess’’ the company’s business judgment about which job qualifications were most essential.

Although age may be a factor considered in an employer’s decision -making process, it cannot be the only one.

Continue reading " Court Rejects Argument Of Age Bias " »

At the end of its 2009-2010 term, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the circumstances under which a third party may bring an action for retaliation. Specifically, the Court has agreed to review whether a worker may bring a suit for retaliation based on his fiancée’s filing of a sex discrimination claim against their mutual employer.

In Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless LP, an employee, Eric Thomson, was terminated three weeks after the company became aware of his fiancée’s sex discrimination claim against them.

Title VII prohibits retaliation as the result of a complaint about certain types of discrimination in the workplace, either directed at you or a fellow employee. Retaliation includes not only being fired, but also almost any negative action by your employer against you in response to a complaint about discrimination or acting as a witness in someone else’s case.

In Thompson, the Sixth Circuit determined that the employee’s status as the fiancé of an individual who filed a discrimination charge was not sufficient to pursue a claim of retaliation because he had not personally engaged in a protected activity.

Although the Justice Department recommended that the court deny review, the Supreme Court accepted the case and will hear oral argument when the new term begins.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled favorably on retaliation claims, finding that an employer may be liable under Title VII for actions that would dissuade a reasonable employee from making or assisting with a discrimination complaint. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).

Continue reading " Can A Fiancé Bring A Third Party Retaliation Claim? " »