Employment Law News from New Mexico: EEOC Lawsuit Alleging Age Discrimination in Hiring is Settled for $90,000

Last month, Western Energy Services of Durango, Inc. (“WESODI”) agreed to pay $90,000 to settle a lawsuit filed in Federal court by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC is the arm of the Federal government that investigates charges of discrimination filed by employees. If the EEOC finds that discrimination has occurred, it can pursue the claim against the employer. If the employer does not wish to settle the administrative case, which the EEOC calls “participate in the conciliation process,” then the EEOC can bring a civil lawsuit against the employer in Federal Court.

That is what the EEOC did in the case of EEOC v. Western Energy Services of Durango, Inc., 11-cv-00866 PJK-CG [D.N.M.]. The EEOC alleged that WESODI rejected applications for two journeyman linemen in Albuquerque, who were referred to the jobs by their union, solely on the basis of the mens’ age. The men were aged 61 and 72 at the time that they applied, and the charge alleged that the line superintendent specifically stated that the men were rejected for employment due to their age. The Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits employment discrimination against individuals aged 40 and over. The lawsuit also alleged that men in their mid-twenties were awarded the jobs instead of the older men who had applied.

WESODI did not participate in conciliation or settle the case at the administrative level, so the EEOC filed a Federal lawsuit. Finally the WESODI agreed to pay $90,000 in damages to settle the lawsuit, as well as post its anti-discrimination policy, provide training about anti-discrimination laws to its employees and managers, and make periodic reports to the EEOC.

What can employers and employees learn from this recent lawsuit and settlement involving New Mexico employees? For employers, if the EEOC pursues a claim, it usually means there is substantial evidence of discrimination, and its’ probably best to settle the claim early. For employees, this case is an example of one that had strong facts beneficial to the employees’ claims, yet the settlement was still rather small, compared to what some might expect. I often have potential employment law clients who want to sue their employer for millions of dollars. That is just plain not possible in some cases (for instance, Federal law caps the amount of damages that an employee can receive from the employee) and it is also often unrealistic. While legal remedies are available to compensate a wronged employee, settlements or even jury awards are rarely a “windfall” for the employee, even under the best of circumstances.

Further reading: EEOC Website on WESODI Settlement

Share on Facebook

Hostile Work Environment Claims, Workplace Harassment, and Bullying at Work

bullyThe topic of “bullying” is very timely, with campaigns underway to make bullying at school or at work illegal, and there is even a movie that was made about bullying. In the employment law arena, often the concept of bullying is confused with the concept of hostile work environment. The reason for this may be that sometimes employees think that a hostile work environment exists if one of their supervisors or co-workers is “hostile”– i.e., threatening, mean, loud, obnoxious, sabotaging, manipulative, etc. This is an incorrect but understandable definition of “hostile work environment.” For better or worse, there is no law stating that a supervisor or co-worker must be civil, cooperative, nice, etc. There is no law forbidding them from being mean or manipulative. A supervisor is legally allowed to be a “jerk” or a bully, to everyone or even to a certain individual or a group of individuals that he just doesn’t like.

If a supervisor is harassing or retaliatory towards one individual or a group of individuals based on their legally protected status, such as race, religion, gender, sexual identity, age, or disability, then a case of discrimination could exist. And “hostile work environment harassment” exists when an employee is subjective to unwelcome and harassing conduct based on the employee’s protected status. The circumstance could be that co-workers tell sexually offensive jokes and/or show sexually suggestive photos to an employee based on her gender, or a group of co-workers tell racially offensive jokes around an employee based on his race. These situations represent conduct that could rise to the level of hostile work environment if it is not only subjectively offensive to the employee but also objectively severe and pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.

Courts look at a variety of factors to determine whether the actions are severe and pervasive, but suffice it to say that a one-time off-hand comment by a co-worker is likely not enough to create a hostile work environment. Rather, the treatment must be ongoing or sufficiently dramatic enough to rise to the level of illegal conduct.

What can an employee do if she believes she is being bullied at work? Sadly, nothing, unless the bullying is based on an illegal reason. For instance, if the employee is being targeted for something she did this is protected or encouraged under the law– organizing a union or exercising her union rights (even talking to other employees about working conditions, pay policies, or union rights); filing a worker’s compensation claim or filing or participating in a discrimination claim; reporting safety or fraudulent violations by the company– then the “bullying” is illegal as it is in fact retaliation. If the employee is being made fun of due to his race to an extent that it affects his work environment and his job contributes to the activity, it is a hostile work environment. If a boss gives an employee a negative evaluation and treats him badly because he won’t date her or sleep with her, then “quid pro quo” harassment is at play. Or if a supervisor picks on and adversely affects an employee because of the employee’s religion, then it’s discrimination. On the other hand, an employee who has a supervisor who is simply being a “bully” for no other reason than to be a bully is not involved in a hostile work environment, nor does he have an otherwise actionable claim.

Further reading: US Dept. of Labor: What You Need to Know About Workplace Harassment

Share on Facebook

Bankruptcy Representation – $1,000 Flat Rate Special

In addition to employment law work, the Law Office of Anita M. Kelley represents individuals and small- to medium- sized business owners in Bankruptcy proceedings. For the month of May, the Law Office of Anita M. Kelley is offering a $1,000 flat rate special for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filings. Find out more on the Bankruptcy Representation page, or call 505-750-0265 or email anita@nmemploymentlaw.com to get started!.

Share on Facebook

Representation for Employees at Unemployment Insurance Benefits Hearings

Representation for Your Unemployment Benefits is Availabile

Did you know? The Law Office of Anita M. Kelley represents employees in the administrative unemployment insurance process for a reasonable one-time flat-rate fee. If your former employer is fighting your eligibility for unemployment benefits, call for a consultation and representation, including attendance at the administrative hearing.

You don’t have to go through this process alone– experienced and efficient legal representation is available, so that you may be advised of your legal rights and have the best chance of success at obtaining your unemployment benefits. Visit the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Hearing Services page or call 505-750-0265 for more information.

 

 

Share on Facebook

Deaf Employee Fired for Requesting Sign Language Interpreter: Miles Kimball Company Settles EEOC Disability Discrimination Case for $95,000.

Wait! All it would have taken to prevent this case is a sign language interpreter to teach an employee new software?!

A recently-settled case is full of some simple lessons regarding the seemingly complicated world of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In the case of EEOC v. Miles Kimball Co., a deaf employee who had worked for 13 years at the company requested a sign language interpreter so that she could understand the training for new software. The company denied her request and then terminated her.

Continue reading

Share on Facebook

How Serious is a “Serious” Medical Condition?: The Nuts and Bolts of Employment Disability Discrimination in New Mexico.

Many people know that it’s illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on the employee’s disability. But when an employee thinks this has happened to them—or when an employer is faced with such a charge—it is important to understand what is classified as a disability or a “serious medical condition,” the effect of such a condition on the employee and the employee’s ability to work, and whether the employer had knowledge of the condition.

Continue reading

Share on Facebook

When “Better Late Than Never” Doesn’t Apply: Some Requirements and Deadlines for Filing a Discrimination Claim in New Mexico

There are important deadlines that apply to an employee’s ability to pursue a discrimination claim against his or her employer in New Mexico. These deadlines are determined by the administrative agency where an employee must first file his or her discrimination claim. This post will provide a brief explanation of the administrative bodies, their process, and their deadlines.

For employment law claims based on discrimination, an employee in New Mexico must first file an administrative claim and go through the administrative process, which is termed “exhausting administrative remedies.” An employee cannot just file a civil lawsuit in civil court, or the lawsuit will be dismissed due to the employee’s failure to first file the claim in the appropriate administrative agency. After the employee goes through the administrative process, if the issue is not resolve, he or she may then file a civil lawsuit.

Continue reading

Share on Facebook

Is it discrimination for an employer to require job applicants to have a high school diploma?

 

This morning I was listening to the morning show on 97.3 on my way to the office, and there was a segment about The Great Academy, a charter school where students of all ages can earn their high school diploma. This school is apparently so popular that there’s a waiting list and a lottery to get in! A representative of the school was discussing the importance of a high school diploma during a job search, and to prove her point, she said that the school was recently hiring a receptionist. They received something like 175 applications for one position, and she said they didn’t even look at the resumes of people without high school diplomas.

Alarm bells went off in my head when I heard that, because I had recently read a letter that the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (the “EEOC”) had sent to employers, warning them about discrimination against job applicants without high school diplomas. The EEOC is a section of the government that enforces Federal laws against discrimination in the workplace. Many questions are raised by the letter, such as: is it illegal for an employer to require job applicants to have a high school diploma? (No.) Does an applicant have a claim for discrimination if they were denied employment because they did not have a high school diploma? (No, unless they have a learning disability that prohibits them from obtaining a high school diploma). And, is it illegal discrimination to summarily reject applicants who do not have high school diplomas? (According to the EEOC’s letter, probably.)

Continue reading

Share on Facebook

What do I have to show to prove an age discrimination claim?

The New Mexico Human Rights Act prohibits many types of employers from taking certain employment actions based on an employee’s age. These employment actions include refusing to hire, discharging/ terminating, promoting or demoting, or discriminating in matters of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment. New Mexico Statutes Annotated (NMSA) § 28-1-7(A).

This same act states that certain portions of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (The “ADEA”), 29 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 631(c)(1) and (2), apply to discrimination based on age. The ADEA prohibits age discrimination against employees who are at least forty years old. Continue reading

Share on Facebook