Employment Law Chronicle for Virginia & the District of Columbia

Characterizing this employment discrimination case as reflecting "certain grit and perseverance," a panel of the 4th Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the employer, thereby allowing the employee's case of sex-based termination to proceed.

Central to the dispute was employer Old Dominion's claim that it fired truck driver Deborah Merritt because Ms. Merritt had failed a physical ability test ("PAT"), which was administered because she had suffered an ankle injury. According to Old Dominion, the PAT demonstrated that Ms. Merritt was unable to perform the physical requirements of her job. As reflected in this quote from the opinion, the PAT was problematic:

According to Merritt, the tasks with which she had problems were unrelated to her ankle injury. For example, on one portion of the PAT, Merritt was unable to place a box of weights on an overhead shelf simply because the shelf was too high for her (at barely over five feet, one inch tall) to reach. On another part of the PAT, Merritt had difficulty walking backward pulling a cable due to people bumping into her in a crowded hallway.

Problems with the test as a measurement of Ms. Merritt's physical ability to perform the job, combined with other evidence suggesting sex-based animus, led a panel of the 4th Circuit to conclude that "the record as a whole supports Merritt’s claim that a jury could find that discrimination on the basis of gender was afoot." Early in the opinion, the panel noted that of the 3,100 drivers employed by Old Dominion in the same position as Ms. Merritt, only six were women.

Putting a fine point on the importance of this decision, in a concurring opinion, Judge Davis wrote:

I particularly appreciate the majority opinion’s reminder that, in intentional discrimination cases, we should not examine the trees so minutely that we lose sight of the forest. The ultimate question in this case, as in all intentional discrimination cases, is not whether the McDonnell Douglas test is satisfied. It is instead, as the majority opinion teaches, whether the plaintiff has generated a genuine dispute of material fact that she is the victim of intentional discrimination, notwithstanding facially plausible reasons offered by the employer for its adverse employment action. The proof scheme is but a useful tool to help identify and resolve that real issue.

Virginia employment lawyers should take note of this decision and other recent decisions in which the 4th Circuit has reversed summary judgment and reinstated plaintiffs' claims.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
Decided: April 9, 2010, Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reversed

Click on the published opinion.

The U.S. Department of Labor's, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) issued a press release announcing a $1.5 million settlement against a federal contractor accused of discriminating against women and certain minority men in hiring procedures. OFCCP determined that applicant testing and screening procedures used by a Texas company, Vought Aircraft Industries, disproportionately eliminated African American men, Asian men, and all women from certain beginner jobs in aircraft assembly.

This case serves as a reminder to federal contractors and subcontractors in Virginia, the District of Columbia, and nationwide that it is important to screen your screening tools to eliminate the potential for claims of sex, gender or other forms of employment discrimination.

Employers in Virginia, the District of Columbia and nationwide need to ensure that testing and selection procedures used to screen job applicants or existing employees for advancement or other opportunities do not have a discriminatory impact on the basis of race, sex, age, disability or other protected category. In recent years, testing and selection criteria have been a prime target of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) enforcement efforts. For example, in November 2006, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a $3 million judgment in EEOC v. Dial Corp resulting from a strength test that appeared to have excluded women from entry-level jobs. In 2007, Ford Motor Company, two of its affiliates, and the UAW entered into a $1.6 million settlement stemming from cognitive apprenticeship tests that appeared to have excluded African Americans. That settlement came on the heels of an $8.5 million settlement in a related case.

In the wake of these multi-million dollar judgments and settlements, the EEOC issued a fact sheet to assist employers in understanding how to avoid employment discrimination claims based on tests and other selection criteria.

Continue reading "EEOC Best Practices: How to Test Employees Without Violating Discrimination Laws" »