SHARE

FEATURED STORY May 11, 2022

Unclear, Inconsistently Enforced Policy Supports Employee Discrimination Claim

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

Key Takeaways

  • Company policies that are not clearly written and consistently enforced will support a claim for discrimination/retaliation in Utah state courts, as the plaintiff can argue that the employer’s justification for termination is mere pretext.

Summary

Shortly after requesting an accommodation for his disability, an employee was terminated for violating company policy. But because the policy at issue was vague, ever-evolving, and inconsistently enforced, the Utah Court of Appeals held that the employer's explanation for why it had terminated the employee was pretextual, holding that it was liable for discrimination and/or retaliation.

The Upshot

  • Company policies that are not clearly written and consistently enforced will support a claim for discrimination/retaliation in Utah state courts, as the plaintiff can argue that the employer's justification for termination is mere pretext.
  • In seeking damages for discrimination/retaliation, employees are not entitled to "double recovery." For example, an employee may recover lost wages, or the amount of funds they were required to withdraw from savings during the time that they were unemployed, but they may not recover both.

The Bottom Line

It is vital that Utah employers draft clear policies that are consistently enforced. A policy that is vague, evolving, or inconsistently enforced will support an employee's claim for discrimination/retaliation. If you have not recently reviewed and updated your handbook, it is time to do so.

In the recent decision in Hexcel Corp. v. Lab Commission, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a decision by the Utah Labor Commission that Hexcel was liable for discrimination and/or retaliation when it fired an employee because of his disability and related request for accommodation.

Michael Pickard had worked as a maintenance electrician. He injured his back in an accident at work. After the injury, his doctor recommended that he not stand, sit, or walk for extended periods. Mr. Pickard requested that Hexcel accommodate his injury by allowing him to work eight-hour shifts, instead of his normal 12- hour shift. The employer denied the request because it was "short-staffed," so Mr. Pickard resumed his normal work schedule.

Long before Mr. Pickard's accommodation request, Hexcel had instituted a rule against sleeping on the job. However, this rule was not enforced. Later, the company circulated a memorandum expressing its intent to begin enforcing the no-sleeping rule and informing its employees that a violation would result in termination. Even after this, Hexcel's enforcement of the no-sleeping rule was inconsistent. Some employees violated the rule, but were not terminated—or even disciplined—for their infractions.

In addition, the exact parameters of the no-sleeping rule were not clearly established. When employees asked about the rule, they were given conflicting explanations. Some were told that they could nap on their breaks as long as they were in the designated breakroom. Other workers were told that they could nap anywhere, as long as they were on a break. Hexcel never put these "evolutions and modifications" of the rule into writing.

A few months after the company denied Mr. Pickard's request for accommodation, he was caught sleeping in a company truck during a brief break and was fired.

The Commission determined that Mr. Pickard had made out a prima facia case of discrimination on the basis of his disability, and that Hexcel's allegedly nondiscriminatory basis for firing him based on the no-sleeping rule was pretextual, because the rule was "incoherent" and inconsistently applied. The Commission awarded damages for lost wages, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and the amount of withdrawals Mr. Pickard had made from his savings and 401(k) accounts to cover living expenses during the time he was unemployed.

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the Commission's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was not clearly erroneous. The court modified the damages award, however. It concluded that in granting Mr. Pickard damages for lost wages, plus the funds he had to withdraw from his savings accounts to compensate for these lost wages, the Commission had given him an impermissible "double recovery."

Although the court reduced the amount of Mr. Pickard's damages, the Hexcel case serves as a warning and reminder to employers that taking an adverse action against an employee on the basis of an inconsistent, unclear policy can have serious consequences and lead to costly litigation. Fortunately, preventing successful discrimination/retaliation claims can be a simple matter of routinely reviewing and updating your company's handbook, policies, and verifying consistent compliance with the same. Should you need assistance with this, the Labor and Employment attorneys at Ballard Spahr LLP have decades of experience in advising public and private employers in policies and compliance and any other labor-related issues that may arise. 

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Ballard Spahr

Innovation in Higher Education, Perspectives from a Pharma CEO - With Dr. David Bearss of U2TAH Therapeutics Accelerator

By Scott D. Marty, Ph.D. Ballard Spahr May 24 , 2022

This episode is part of an ongoing series where we interview leaders who are striving to grow economic development in their area.

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Prejudice Requirement for Waiver of Arbitration

By Mark J. Levin Ballard Spahr May 23 , 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court today held that waiver of the right to arbitrate does not require a showing that the other party was prejudiced. The unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan in Morgan v. Sundance reversed the Eighth Circuit, which had held that a party waives the right to arbitrate if it knew of the right, acted inconsistently with that right and prejudiced the other party by its inconsistent actions.

New CFPB Interpretive Rule Outlines Broad State CFPA Enforcement Authority

By Michael Gordon Ballard Spahr May 23 , 2022

The CFPB has issued a new interpretive rule regarding the authority of state attorneys general and state regulators (State Officials) to enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

More From Labor Law

Workplace Safety Review: Episode 26 | Interview with Rod Harvey

By Michael T. Taylor Greenberg Traurig June 22 , 2022

In this episode, Mike Taylor and Adam Roseman talk to Rod Harvey, Director of Industrial Hygiene and Field Services for RHP Risk Management Inc.

In Viking River Cruises, US Supreme Court Sides With Employers: Individual PAGA Claims Are Arbitrable - For Now

By Timothy Long Greenberg Traurig June 17 , 2022

In a victory for California employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of arbitration agreements that waive an employee’s right to bring a Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claim on a representative basis – requiring such claims be brought on an individual basis in arbitration. The Court further held that “PAGA provides no mechanism to enable a court to adjudicate non-individual PAGA claims once an individual claim has been committed to a separate [individual arbitration] proceeding.”

GT's The Performance Review Episode 16: Fit Fam: Lifting the Weight of California Privacy Laws (Part 2)

By Philip I. Person Greenberg Traurig June 15 , 2022

Join Philip Person and Ryan Bykerk as they discuss employee privacy with Lauren Green, internal counsel at global boutique fitness brand Barry’s Bootcamp.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...