HR and the Courts – October 2022

Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

University’s Internal Investigation of Pay Equity Claims Protected By Attorney-Client Privilege — EEOC Fails In Attempt to Require Disclosure of Documents 

A federal district court judge recently rejected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s demand that a university turn over 54 documents related to an internal investigation the university conducted by inside and outside counsel concerning pay equity claims made by an athletic department employee who claimed she was paid approximately $37,000 less annually than a similarly situated male employee. The court rejected the EEOC’s argument that the investigation was conducted by the institution’s EEO office and did not involve seeking legal advice (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. George Washington University (2022 BL 308648, D.D.C., No. 1:17-cv-01978. 9/1/22)). The court ruled that the investigation and all related documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege.

The court concluded that the university did not waive privilege by asserting good faith compliance with federal law as a defense to the EEOC’s claim for punitive damages. The court added that the university does not intend to use the documents in question in proving the good faith defense.

Failure to Renew a Coach’s Discretionary Contract May Be an Actionable Adverse Employment Action Subject to a Title IX Retaliatory Termination Claim

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii) recently ruled that failure to renew a golf coach’s contract may be an adverse employment action subject to a Title IX retaliation claim (Macintyre v. Carroll College (9th Cir., No. 21- 35642, 9/8/22)). The plaintiff was hired as an assistant golf coach in 2006, promoted to head golf coach in 2007 and appointed associate athletic director in 2013. His contract was subject to renewal at the discretion of the college.

The plaintiff became aware of what he thought was an improper disparity in the amount the college spent on men’s versus women’s athletic programs. He concluded that the college was out of compliance with applicable Title IX mandates. He alleges that after raising these issues with the interim athletic director and the Title IX coordinator he received negative performance reviews for the first time. He filed a grievance alleging discrimination. In settling the matter, he was given a two-year contract to be head golf coach. At the end of the two-year period his contract was not renewed. His current action alleges that the non-renewal was in retaliation for his raising Title IX concerns.

The court, in ruling that the case should go forward, concluded that this non-renewal might be an adverse employment action and might deter employees from reporting discrimination.

California Appeals Court Rules That Remote Work Due to COVID-19 Can Broaden Where Employees May Sue for Job Bias

A California appellate court recently ruled that the COVID-19 pandemic and technological advances have changed the way people work. The court went on to hold that the venue provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act were meant to remove barriers for suing for job discrimination. Therefore, the “modern reality” of work means that an employee who was fired while on pregnancy leave at her home in Los Angeles County can sue there rather than in Orange County where the employer was located (Malloy v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County ( 2022 BL 330038 Cal. St. App 2nd Dist, 9/19/22)).

The court concluded that allowing remote workers to sue where they worked or would have worked effectuates the purposes of the Act. The case involved a demand by the plaintiff’s employer that she return to the physical office after her pregnancy leave had ended. After the plaintiff was fired for not coming back to work, the plaintiff sued under the California statute for pregnancy and sex discrimination and sex harassment, interference with her family and medical leave rights, and retaliation for trying to exercise her family and medical leave rights. The plaintiff also included a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

California Moves Toward Requiring Employers to Prove Impairment Before Terminating an Employee for Cannabis Use

In another California development which may spread to other states, the governor signed a new law which goes into effect on January 1, 2024 that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who use cannabis during off-duty hours. Commentators conclude that this gives California employers 15 months to develop an accurate test on whether an employee is impaired at the job after smoking marijuana or consuming cannabis-infused snacks before firing them or otherwise disciplining an employee for marijuana use. The dilemma is that scientists conclude that there is currently no accurate test that determines impairment form using marijuana or cannabis products.

Cosmetology Students and School Both Win Partial Summary Judgement on Claims That Students Should Be Paid For Work Completed as Part of School-Supervised Job Training

A federal court in Michigan ruled in favor on summary judgement on some of the claims brought by cosmetology students that they should be paid for work performed as part of their course obligations to engage in supervised on-the-job training. The cosmetology school also won partial summary judgement regarding some of the tasks for which the student made wage claims (Eberline v. Douglas J. Holdings, Inc. (2022 BL 332583, E.D. Mich. Partial Summary Judgement 9/22/22)).

The court divided the student tasks for which pay was claimed into three categories, namely client services, janitorial tasks and retail sales. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of facts on who was the primary beneficiary of client services tasks, ruling that the students were the primary beneficiary in this area, therefore granting partial summary judgement to the school. Similarly, the court ruled that there was no genuine dispute of facts on who was the primary beneficiary of janitorial tasks, ruling that the school was the primary beneficiary, therefore granting partial summary judgement to the students. Finally, the court ruled that there is a genuine dispute of facts on who is the primary beneficiary of retail sales tasks, thus ruling that this area must be given to a jury to decide.