Just Like Hollywood, Big Pictures are Best in Termination Decisions

29 February 2016 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

A federal appeals court recently revived a former employee’s gender discriminatory discharge claim even though there appeared to be legitimate reasons for her termination. The decision suggests that employers take a big picture look at termination decisions based on a specific instance of misconduct rather than a more narrow view assessing the misconduct at issue within its own proverbial bubble.

Among the things employers should consider when taking this bigger-picture approach are:

  1. The work history of the employee that committed the misconduct.
  2. Co-workers’ and/or comparators’ work history going back several years.
  3. Whether the employee who committed the misconduct a member of a protected group that is under represented in his/her job position, department, etc. For example, is the employee the only female or minority in the same job classification?
  4. Whether any co-workers (comparators) commit the same type of misconduct in the prior year or two. If yes, what discipline was issued, if any?

In the case, the former employee (accuser), a woman employed as a nursing assistant at the employer’s mental health crisis center, mistakenly discharged the wrong patient only hours after she attended a training session focusing on the requirement that patient identification wristbands and discharge paperwork must be checked to verify that that the correct patient is being discharged. The accuser admitted that she did not check the patient’s identification wristband prior to discharge. In addition, the discharged patient had only been admitted to the center seven hours earlier for suicidal concerns and still was at substantial risk for suicide.

So why did the appeals court revive the claim? In a nutshell, there was evidence that the accuser was treated less favorably than male coworkers.

Where did the employer go wrong? There is no doubt that the accuser violated the employer’s policies, the error compromised a patient’s safety, and the error was egregious. But according to the court, the employer made a mistake by stopping there and not looking at how other employees who committed similar misconduct were treated.

The following facts persuaded the appeals court to revive the accuser’s claim. The accuser had been a high performer and had never previously been disciplined prior to her termination. The employer employed a total of 14 nursing assistants and the accuser was the only female. In the 12 months prior to the accuser’s termination, two male nursing assistants also violated policies that compromised patient and/or staff safety but were only suspended. Male #1 had discharged the wrong patient because he did not properly check the patient’s identification wristband (the same misconduct the accuser committed). Male #2 failed to properly search a newly admitted patient’s bag wherein the patient concealed three knives. Lastly, both Male #1 and Male #2 had been disciplined multiple times for policy violations, including both receiving final written warnings, prior to their suspensions.

As we suggested above, employers must be careful issuing disciplinary action for employee misconduct as if each incident exists within its own isolated bubble. Courts will go outside that proverbial bubble to determine if the discipline imposed was in line with discipline previously issued to other employees and whether employer’s conduct could indicate a bias toward or against any protected class. A disparate treatment claim, by its very nature, means looking beyond the individual’s circumstances and considering how others were treated.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services