Upcoming Audio Conference:
Supreme Court Case “Staub v. Proctor Hospital”
and Far-Reaching Liability for Employers
Two managers didn’t like one of their employees, so they made working conditions extremely difficult for him. When he couldn’t live up to their expectations and demands, they handed the case to the HR rep who, upon reviewing the case, gave the employee the ax.
But the HR rep was working off biased information from the managers, who seemed to “have it in” for the employee at the other end.
So, the employee sued the company after his termination—and won in the Supreme Court.
That, in essence, is Staub v. Proctor Hospital, handed down from the Supreme Court on March 1, 2011. Two managers were hostile towards Vincent Staub’s Army Reserves activities and the time he had to take off for them. Rather than firing him directly, they built up a case against him and turned him over to HR—perhaps in an attempt to insulate themselves from what could otherwise be seen as discrimination.
The Court unanimously held that employers can be liable for decisions that are made, at least in part, due to the influence of managers or supervisors who had unlawful or discriminatory motives.
Even though Staub sued under USERRA, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, noted that the law has elements that are similar to the civil rights law, Title VII. His comments suggest that the principles established in Staub’s case may have other applications in cases that involve discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
And if that’s the case, by establishing this theory of “cat’s paw” liability in the Staub decision, what are the wider ramifications for employers?
In fact, the decision is already affecting another case—this time an FMLA claim case, Blount v. Ohio Bell Telephone. The terminated employees are claiming they were treated differently under a performance management system after returning from FMLA leave.
If the final decision maker for an employment-related decision has no illegal or bad motives themselves, can the employer really be held liable? What about co-workers—if a co-worker has a discriminatory motive, does that expose the employer to liability? What role does investigation play in protecting the employer from liability? What can be done to prevent this scenario from ever arising?
Nearly 1 in 3 cases filed are employment related, and this decision provides yet another arrow in the quiver of a potential plaintiff. If you have ever had a “little” employee-relations problem escalate into a “big” legal battle, you know just how bad workplace disputes can be. They can quickly blow up out of proportion, wreaking havoc on your company’s productivity, employee morale and your bottom line.
Employers have to tread even more carefully now in termination situations, since this decision establishes another legal avenue for a disgruntled employee to pursue his or her grievances. If you’re looking for clarity and want to know how this latest Supreme Court decision affects you personally, sign up today to hear legal experts Susan Bassford Wilson and Robert H. Bernstein give their expert opinion on how to navigate these new legal waters.
This audio conference will help you answer some of the questions raised by this new decision and provide practical guidance to help your company avoid liability stemming from this newly-established theory.
Learning Objectives:
Why “cat’s paw” liability is not something to bat away or take lightly
Purity of heart—a complete defense? How do you measure motive?
The dos and don’ts of investigation to cover yourself from liability
To train or not to train—that is the question
Grievance procedures that work
Presented by:
Robert H. Bernstein is a member of Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP. For nearly 30 years, he has developed an extensive labor and employment practice, exclusively representing multinational and domestic corporations on both a regional and national basis, with an emphasis in employment litigation and counseling. He handles class and collective actions covering the full panoply of federal and state anti-discrimination and wage and hour laws. Mr. Bernstein earned both his law degree and his undergraduate degree (B.S.F.S.) from Georgetown University.
Susan Bassford Wilson, also of Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP, specializes in management-side employment law, particularly focusing on litigation prevention. She has handled a wide range of litigation matters in federal and state courts across Missouri and Illinois. Ms. Wilson earned her law degree from the University of Michigan and her undergraduate degrees in journalism and psychology from the University of Missouri.
Constangy attorneys have counseled employers since 1946. The firm represents Fortune 500 corporations and smaller companies across the nation. The firm has more than 130 attorneys in multiple offices throughout the United States. Constangy attorneys understand what it’s like to walk in clients’ shoes—whether in the board room, the courtroom, or the factory—and they provide experienced representation in all employment situations. Please visit www.constangy.com for more information.
Product Options:
Audio Conference Only: $219.00
Audio Conference CD Only: $229.00 (includes S&H)
Audio Conference + CD: $329.00 (includes S&H)
To register or learn more, please visit:
http://www.workplacetrainingcenter.com/Prod-2490.aspx?sourceCode=WHGF11
No comments:
Post a Comment