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. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Dotson v. Pfizer explains that Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") rights are triggered by an employee's request for leave covered by the FMLA, without regard to whether the employee mentions "FMLA" or uses any other term of art in the statute. Since the Fourth Circuit decides appeals from Virginia federal courts, the decision is particularly important for Virginia employers.

In this case, employee James Dotson (Dotson) was awarded more than $722,000 on his FMLA interference and retaliation claims, including $333,305 in statutory liquidated damages, $375,000 in attorneys' fees, and $14,265 in costs. Each party appealed different rulings of the trial court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment, except as to the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest. Holding that pre-judgment interest on FMLA damage awards is mandatory, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case, directing the trial court to recalculate Dotson's damage and fee awards to include pre-judgment interest.

The following arguments made by Pfizer and rejected by the Fourth Circuit provide clear guidance to employers that the burden is on employers -- not employees -- to understand and properly apply the FMLA:

Continue reading "Family and Medical Leave Act: "Magic Words" Not Required to Invoke FMLA Rights (Dotson v. Pfizer, March 4, 2009, 4th Circuit)" »

In two recent decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit focused on relevant standards of review for two issues of interest to Virginia immigration and employment lawyers:

In Woods v. Prudential Ins. Co., No. 07-1580 (June 11, 2008), the Fourth Circuit concluded that the trial court erroneously applied the "abuse-of-discretion" standard of review to plaintiff's ERISA claim instead of the more rigorous "de novo" standard of review to determine whether the plan administrator properly denied plaintiff's benefit claim.

In Teshome-Gebreegziabher v. Mukasey, No. 08-1060 (June 16, 2008), the Fourth Circuit clarified that the "clear and convincing" standard of review applies to an immigrant's motion to stay deportation.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that a former employee filed suit in Norfolk Circuit Court seeking $65 million against BJ's Wholesale Club for failing to warn or take precautions to protect the former employee from her estranged husband who came to the workpace, killed the employee's sister, and shot the employee. According to the article, the lawsuit alleges that on the day of the shooting, the employee's manager at BJ's received several phone calls and a visit from the husband threatening the employee, but the Company did not warn or protect the employee.

While the outcome of this case remains to be seen, an important take-away for employers is that it is critically important to develop, implement, and communicate to employees specific procedures to respond to workplace threats.