Employment Law

• Date: 01 September 2016
• Published date: 01 September 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30234

10

SEPTEMBER 2016NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company • All rights reserved

DOI: 10.1002/nba

Employment Law

Here’s a look at several recent notable lawsuits involving nonprots. Nonprots should regularly review

employment laws and their compliance efforts to avert similar issues.

Age Discrimination

Former employee’s suit stays alive

Cathy Conn worked for the Red Cross for over a

decade, primarily as a director of the audit department.

In August 2011, the Red Cross created the position of

chief compliance ofcer to oversee Conn’s department,

and hired Thomas Manor for the job.

A few weeks after he was hired, Manor held a confer-

ence with Conn concerning her professional develop-

ment goals. He allegedly asked her when she planned

to retire. A little later, a fellow employee told her that

Manor allegedly had said: (1) Conn had been in her

job too long to accept change and (2) Conn would slow

things down were she to be reassigned the tasks she had

previously handled.

At about that time, Manor made a presentation to

the auditing staff outlining his vision for the depart-

ment. According to Conn, several staff members voiced

concerns to her about the accuracy of his presentation

slides. In response, Conn sent an email to all of the

auditors—without copying Manor—advising them to

take some of his slides with a grain of salt. When Manor

became aware of the email, he issued Conn a “nal writ-

ten warning” letter for “undermining his leadership.”

The next business day, Conn notied Manor that

she had been under a psychiatrist’s care for job-related

stress and anxiety, and that the nal written warning

had exacerbated her condition to the point where she

was heavily medicated and not able to travel or work.

Conn subsequently took ve weeks of leave.

In January 2014, Manor red her.

Conn led a suit that asserted several claims. One of

them was age discrimination.

The Red Cross led a motion for summary judgment.

Conn argued in response that Manor’s alleged state-

ments were evidence of discriminatory intent.

District Judge Christopher Cooper said Manor’s

question to Conn about her retirement plans did not

support a discriminatory inference. He explained that it

would be perfectly natural for a newly installed supervi-

sor, in the course of discussing a senior staff member’s

career development goals, to inquire about her age and

retirement plans.

EMPLOYEE WINS ➔ However, he ruled that the

other alleged remarks to her fellow employee could re-

ect the sort of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes

that led Congress to enact the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act. He ruled that a reasonable juror

could conclude that Manor viewed older workers as

both resistant to change and inefcient, and that those

views led to his decision to re her.

In addition, the judge ruled that the relatively short

period of time during which Manor supervised Conn

before issuing a nal warning and ring her also raised

questions concerning Manor’s motivations. Viewed

against the entirety of the relationship between the two,

Judge Cooper concluded that those comments could

support a reasonable inference that he terminated Conn

because of her age. He refused to grant summary judg-

ment with respect to that claim.

[Conn v. American National Red Cross, U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia, No. 13-cv-01810,

02/25/2016].

Disability Discrimination

Evidence of pretext keeps former

employee’s suit alive

Brenda Scheidler began working as a le clerk for

the Indiana Department of Insurance in 2006. Three

years later, she was diagnosed with depression, bipolar

disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.

For the duration of her employment, Scheidler’s

performance evaluations indicated that she was

meeting—and, in some instances, exceeding—almost

all expectations.

In early 2013, she complained to co-workers about

favoritism in the department. In May, a different

employee by the name of Annette Gunter said to

Scheidler, “I could just strangle you,” and made a

choking gesture. Gunter also said she was tired of

Scheidler’s complaints, and that Scheidler should quit

and get another job. Gunter raised her voice at some

point during the exchange. Scheidler responded by

saying, “You know as well as I do that you’ve been

unhappy too. I’ve not had the same … opportunities

… as you have to move out of a position that you was

(sic) miserable with,” and “… there were many days

that you were crying … and you had to take Xanax.”

During an investigation, the department learned

about Scheidler’s earlier favoritism complaint.