Discrimination & Educational Access Flashcards
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
Over 4 year period Vinson worked her way to branch manager at Meritor bank
She was fired due to excessive sick leave she filed under Title VII claiming she was sexually harassed by her boss (Taylor)- discriminated against on basis of sex
Alleged he made sexual advances and she did it for fear of losing her job and being subject of demeaning comments in front of coworkers
At trial DC found she wasn’t victim of SH because her relationship with Taylor was voluntary and did not have to do with advancement or promotions
US COA reversed finding- SH includes the creation of a hostile/offensive work environment even when it isn’t quid pro quo (terms of employment not contingent on sexual favors)
Does a finding of sexual harassment require the employee be subject to a quid pro quo linking the terms of employment to sexual favors?
No. SCOTUS affirmed COA ruling. Claim of hostile work environment due to SH is actionable under Title VII of CRA
1.) Affirmed hostile environment violates Title VII (don’t need show led to economic or tangible damages). 2.) overruled the DC finding that voluntariness negates a claim of harassment (because she voluntarily did it, it wasn’t harassment) and defined the test as whether Taylor’s actions were unwelcome (also acknowledged this is difficult to prove)
1.) Unwelcome conduct standard- speech and conduct itself can create a hostile working environment 2.) Sexual conduct between a subordinate and supervisor could not be deemed voluntary due to hierarchical relationship between two work workplace positions
Ellison v. Brady (1991)
Ellison was an IRS agent in CA. Met Gray (coworkers but not close and didn’t work closely together); he repeatedly asked her out and she declined, wrote her a letter and this upset her; supervisor said Gray’s bx was sexual harassment ;he was transferred but per his later request, able to come back
She later filed formal sexual harassment complaint with IRS and with federal court who said her claim was trivial and contained isolated incidents; she appealed
What level of sexual harassment constitutes a hostile work environment?
9th CCOA reversed. A prima facie case of hostile work environment is made when she alleges conduct which a reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment
1.) Adopted “reasonable woman” standard (to account for unique perspective of women- gender conscious examination of sexual harassment) 2.) Even when harassers do not realize their conduct creates a hostile working environment, can still meet reasonable victim standard
1.) Rejection of reasonable person standard in favor of “reasonable woman standard” which allowed the case to be analyzed fro the perspective of the claimant, not the defendant 2.) Doesn’t establish higher level of protection for women than men but is gender conscious
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc (1993)
Harris sued Forklift stating that the conduct of the company’s president constituted an abusive working environment based on her gender and was in violation of Title VII (sexual innuendos, take coins from front pocket)
DC ruled offensive behavior but not so severe that it affected her psychological well being or so offended that she suffered injury so ruled she had not been discriminated against pursuant to Title VII- they applied “reasonable woman” standard but noted his comment were not so severe (reasonable woman would have been offended but it wouldn’t have impacted job performance)
US COA -affirmed
USSC granted cert
For conduct to be actionable as “abusive work environment” harassment, must it seriously affect an employee’s psychological well-being? What level of sexual harassment constitutes an abusive work environment under the “Reasonable woman” standard?
No 1.) Title VII applies when conduct leads to a nervous breakdown, and even abuse that does not seriously affect their well being can and will detract from job performance, discourage employees from keeping the job, or keep them from advancing in their careers. 2.) Reaffirmed the Meritor standard that actionable conduct must create an “objectively hostile” work environment and must also be “subjectively” perceived by victim as abusive
1.) Standard is not if concrete psychological harm was imposed but if the actions were severe or pervasive enough to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment- importance of if the behavior was hostile or abusive - no need for it to be psychologically injurious
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc (1998)
Oncale worked on an 8 man rig- subjected to humiliating sex related actions by male coworkers and on one occasion was sexually assaulted who threatened him with rape
He quit after complaints went no where, fearing he would be raped or forced to have sex
DC filed summary judgment for employer finding Title VII didn’t apply to same sex
US COA affirmed ruling
USSC-granted cert
Does abusive behavior between an employer and employee of the same sex qualify as discrimination under Title VII?
Yes. SCOTUS reversed
1.) workplace sexual harassment is actionable as sex discrimination under Title VII even though same sex. 2.) Conduct did not need to be motivated by sexual desire to support discrimination on basis of sex but as noted in Meritor and Harris, conduct has to be so objectively offensive as to alter conditions of their employment
1.) Title VII protects men and woman against harassment due to their sex and no language barring a claim against discrimination because alleged harassers were same sex 2.) Again cited the reasonable person standard in determining when behaviors constitute harassment
Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
Ellerth worked for Burlington and claimed SH; hinted that her promotion depended on her favors; DC granted judgment to Burlington, noting they didn’t know about Slowik’s behavior and should not have known (she didn’t report the conduct or use internal procedures)
COA reversed
SCOTUS granted cert
Does SH equal a hostile work environment that an employer should be aware of? Can one sue alleging harassment/hostile work environment if no formal complaints were made while an employee? Are these concerns in violation of Title VII?
SCOTUS affirmed COA. Employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment
1.) Under Title VII, an employee who refuses unwelcome/threatening sexual advances but suffers no adverse/tangible job consequences can recover against an employer without showing the employer is negligent or otherwise at fault for supervisor’s actions 2.) Her claim constituted a hostile work environment and Burlington is subject to vicarious liability for Slowik’s activities but can employ an affirmative defense
1.) Extended legal principle of respondent superior (duty of employer to provide a harassment free environment)- employers are responsible for actions of subordinates
Pennsylvania v. Yeskey (1998)
Yeskey sentenced to prison; if completed boot came could be incarcerated for ⅓ of his time but he was denied admission due to hypertension
He sued PA DOC claiming violated ADA by denying him the opportunity to participate in a program that could shorten his incarceration
DC dismissed his claims stating state prisons are not subject to ADA
US COA-3rd circuit reversed -holding prisons are subject to ADA
PA appealed to USSC citing ADA mandated that denying people with disabilities is prohibited (state argued prison was not intended to benefit the person)
USSC affirmed appellate decision
Does the ADA apply to people who are incarcerated in state prisons?
Yes
1.) He was indeed entitled to protection from discrimination despite being an inmate.
Olmstead v. Zimring (1999)
Zimring guardian ad litem for LC (MR person with schizophrenia); admitted to hospital for psychiatric tx
After inpt tx, clinicians said she could be treated safely in a community program but she remained in the hospital pending placement
She sued for relief pursuant to the ADA, arguing her continued confinement was discriminatory in that she was precluded from access to the community equal to that of those without her disability
DC granted partial judgment for Zimring, partially upheld by US COA-11th circuit
USSC agreed with zimring
Does continued confinement of individuals with mental disabilities in hospitals beyond their clinical need for that level of care constitution discrimination under the ADA?
Yes
1.) Unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination. 2.) States are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings when the state’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated taking into account the available resources. 3.) Addressing GA concerns, stated they don’t have to be transferred immediately but state must have a mechanism by which people who are eligible be transferred within a reasonable amount of time.
1.) Continued institutionalization of a person who could be treated in the community may constitute discrimination under ADA 2.) Rely on available professionals if they meet community based program 3.) States must provide programs when tx professionals determine such a placement is appropriate, person doesn’t oppose it, and can be reasonably accommodated 4.) Under ADA individuals with mental disabilities have a right to live in the community rather than an institution
Ricci v. DeStafano (2009)
CT administered written and oral exams to fill Lt positions in fire department; when examined, pass rate for AA was half that of Whites; Civil Service board reviewed the test to determine if it had a disparate impact on AA or if it was inherently biased; board couldn’t come to a decision so didn’t certify the exams so those who scored highest didn’t get promotion
Ricci was denied promotion and sued mayor (DeStafano) for violation of Equal Protection of Title VII; City said they feared a lawsuit over exclusion of racial groups under disparate impact if had certified results
DC found in favor of government; Circuit court affirmed stating they were trying to fulfill obligations under Title VII
SCOTUS granted cert
When an otherwise valid civil service selection process yields unintended racially disproportionate results, can municipalities reject the results and the successful candidates for reasons of race?
No. SCOTUS reversed.
1.) No sufficient evidence exam itself had disparate impact or that there was internal bias- did not have a strong basis in evidence that would have suggested disparate impact if they had promoted white and hispanic FF instead of black (long and detailed research that went into test development to make sure it was related to job duties) 2.) Fear of litigation alone can’t justify reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the exam (no strong basis in evidence) 3.) engaged in race-based decision making (even though faced with threats of lawsuit no matter what they did)
1.) Strong basis in evidence standard to resolve conflict between Title VII disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions
Disparate tx: Unequal bx (treated unfairly or less favorably to similarly situated others) toward someone because of a protected characteristic (race or gender) under Title VII of CRA
Disparate impact: employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others
Toyota v. Williams (2002)
Williams sued toyota under ADA saying she had carpal tunnel and they didn’t make reasonable accommodations for her disability
Toyota argued didn’t qualify as a disability because didn’t substantially limit major life activities
DC ruled in favor of Toyota
US COA-6th circuit reversed and ruled that her inability to continue her work as a manual laborer represented a limitation of major life activity
USSC-reversed COA
Does a disability that limits only specific work related tasks qualify as a disability under the ADA?
No
1.) Appellate court did not apply proper standard for defining a disability because it failed to ask if the condition prevented or restricted her from doing task that are central importance to most people’s daily lives. 2.) Merely having an impairment does not make one disabled under ADA- need to demonstrate impairment limits a major life activity. 3.) Major life activities refer to those activities that are central to daily life.
Hargrave v. Vermont (2003)
VT law allowed people to execute durable power of attorney (DPOA) for health care decisions in case they become incapacitated
Hargrave CC to state hospital- previously executed a DPOA forbidding her agent from consenting to all psychotropic medication
Hospital medicated her in a non-emergent situation so she sued claiming her DPOA was ignored b/c of MI and her MI rendered her disabled and protected by ADA (no way for VT to medicate over objection for people who were only physically ill just for people who were MI- even with DPOA)
DC granted summary judgment for Ms. Hargraves
Does a validly executed durable POA, which specifies preferred tx alternatives, carry the same weight for individuals hospitalized for MI as those w/o MI?
Yes
1.) Stated the VT act singled out MI for discrimination and thus violated ADA. 2.) Upheld by US COA-2nd circuit
U.S. v Georgia (2006)
Goodman, a parapelgic inmate in GA- sued state claiming he was being discriminated against because of his disability in violation of ADA (alleged he was confined 23 hrs a day in a cell so narrow he couldn’t turn his wheelchair around and denied access to programming, medical, and assistance with bathing/toileting
GA said didn’t have to accommodate him because ADA violated its state sovereignty under 11th amendment (prohibits federal government from impinging on state’s autonomy except as specifically provided in Constitution)
DC dismissed case citing sovereign immunity barred Title II ADA claims
US COA agreed about ADA claims but reversed decision based on 8th amendment claims
USSC granted cert
Can a disabled inmate in a state prison sue the state under Title II of ADA?
Yes
1.) Congress has the power to enforce constitutional guarantee of equal protection across states and therefore ADA created a private cause of action against states for conduct that violates 14th amendment