Employment Law

• Date: 01 August 2017
• Published date: 01 August 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nba.30351

10

AUGUST 2017NONPROFIT BUSINESS ADVISOR

© 2017 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.

Racial Discrimination

Management’s moderate discipline

undermines former employee’s suit

Latiya Smith, a black woman, worked in an un-

specied capacity for the Florida Parishes Juvenile

Detention Center.

In October 2014, FPJDC Director of Operations

Russell Sanders received a tip that Smith had sent

out sexual content by email. His resulting investiga-

tion revealed pornographic images on the center’s

server. When Sanders confronted Smith, she admit-

ted sending out the images on her work cell phone,

stating she did not realize they would remain on the

center’s server.

In accordance with the center’s disciplinary pro-

gram, Sanders issued an “Employee Rule Violation

Report” to Smith on that day, charging her with ag-

gravated malfeasance and general misconduct. He

also took away her work cell phone and suspended

her access to the center’s network.

In November, the center granted Smith’s request

for medical leave. When she returned to work in

January 2015, she continued to perform her regular

duties without any demotion or loss of pay.

An ad hoc disciplinary review committee consid-

ered the Employee Rule Violation Report when she

returned, and issued a “Job at Risk” letter to Smith,

which stated that she would face termination if simi -

lar or greater misconduct occurred within one year.

Although her work cell phone and network access

were restored, managers avoided direct contact with

her, purportedly because they did not want to make

an awkward situation worse.

Smith continued to work as usual with her su-

pervisors, and she was not demoted or given tasks

below her position. However, Smith claimed that

management created a hostile work environment

by snubbing her.

Smith resigned in March and led a suit claiming

racial discrimination.

The center led a motion for summary judgment.

EMPLOYER WINS ➔ District Judge Joseph

Wilkinson Jr. ruled that Smith could not establish

discrimination because she had not been subjected

to an adverse employment action since nothing the

center did resulted in any loss of compensation,

duties or benets. He said that Smith suffered only:

(1) inconvenience in the loss of her work cell phone

and network access, (2) receipt of a “Job at Risk”

letter and (3) management avoiding direct contact

with her.

The judge cited cases demonstrating that such

things as criticism, abusive remarks, offensive

conduct, verbal reprimands and unfair treatment

did not amount to actionable adverse employment

actions.

He acknowledged that a voluntary resignation

could sometimes constitute an adverse employment

action if it qualied as a “constructive discharge.”

But the judge said there was no evidence that a

reasonable employee would have felt compelled to

resign in those circumstances because Smith was not

demoted or reassigned to menial or degrading work.

He acknowledged that Smith had been subjected

to discipline for using her work cell phone to send

pornographic images, but said there was no evidence

she had been badgered, harassed or humiliated into

resigning.

Judge Wilkinson dismissed the suit.

[Smith v. Florida Parishes Juvenile Justice Com-

mission, et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana, No. 15-6972, 03/30/2017].

Disability Discrimination

Lack of factual allegations undercuts

former employee’s case

In July 2010, Yvette Williams became a “corre-

spondence specialist” who worked in the mailroom

at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De-

velopment. Although she had a number of physical

disabilities that substantially limited her ability to

sit, stand and walk, Williams was able to perform the

essential functions of her job with some reasonable

accommodations.

In December, Williams was told she would not

receive a promotion because she had too many

absences.

In January 2011, Williams contacted a counselor

regarding her nonpromotion and other matters.