Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 1
A Wiccan coffee shop barista is allowed to go to trial on a claim that her employer discriminated against her because of her religion.
A Starbucks employee who wore a pendant signifying that she practiced the Wiccan religion could go to trial on her claim that she was fired because her managers did not approve of her religion, a court recently ruled.
After the employee began wearing a Wiccan pendant around her neck, her manager regularly made negative comments about it, allegedly telling the employee on one occasion that customers would think she was a “Satan worshiper.” The manager also allegedly told the employee to either remove the pendant or tuck it into her shirt when she was working. Another manager allegedly told the worker that she could “move up” in the company if she removed the necklace, and that it offended her. Eventually, the employee was fired. According to Starbucks, it fired her for excessive absenteeism.
The court agreed with the employee that the evidence of religious discrimination was strong enough for the case to continue to trial. The employee presented evidence that numerous employees, including her manager, wore Christian religious pendants that were at least as large as hers with no repercussions, and that the company’s human resources department had told her that she merely needed to ensure that the pendant did not fall below the top of her apron, which would be a safety hazard.
After considering the evidence of numerous negative comments by two managers, the fact that other employees were allowed to wear Christian jewelry and the fact that the employee found the remarks about her religion serious enough to cause her to complain to human resources, the court found that there was a question of fact about whether the worker had been fired for absenteeism or because of her religion. In its finding, the court also noted that the company had failed to present evidence regarding how often it disciplined employees for absenteeism, and thus providing no support for its contention that it fired the plaintiff because she missed a shift.
This case shows that employees are entitled to protection from religious discrimination even if the religion they practice is not in the mainstream. The court particularly noted that it was no defense for Starbucks to contend that its managers could not have discriminated because they did not understand the Wiccan religion; the court noted that such an argument defied both “logic and experience.”
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Hedum v. Starbucks Corp., 2008 WL 361202 (D. Or., February 7, 2008)].
An employee who complained that her boss constantly stared at her chest stated a claim for sexual harassment.
The secretary to a town administrator who contended that she was transferred after complaining that her boss constantly stared at her breasts could move forward with her claim of sexual harassment because the evidence could be construed to describe a hostile work environment.
Although the alleged staring was not accompanied by lewd remarks, sexual innuendo or unwanted touching, the court found that, under the facts of this case, the staring on its own could be actionable. In this case, the staring went on for at least two years; in addition, several other female employees testified that they felt uncomfortable when the town administrator stared at their breasts as well. The town conducted an investigation but concluded that the staring, even if it occurred, was not sexual in nature, and therefore, did not constitute harassment.
The court disagreed. Although nothing other than staring occurred -- no touching, lewd comments, propositions or intimidating behavior -- in this case, the staring on its own could create a sexually hostile work environment. The court emphasized that such cases need to be considered on an individual basis. Specifically, the plaintiff had been complaining for two years that her boss stared at her chest when he spoke to her. Other female employees also testified that the town administrator stared at them in a similar way. Therefore, on the facts of this specific case, the plaintiff had stated sufficient facts to have a jury decide the harassment issue.
This case shows that sexual harassment does not need to involve blatant sexual behavior or physical contact to be actionable. However, the court also pointed out that not every instance of staring in the workplace would be considered sexual harassment. Whether a situation creates a hostile work environment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Billings v. Town of Grafton, -- F.3d --, 2008 WL324902, (1st Cir. February 7, 2008)].
A meat-processing plant worker’s complaint about a coworker’s drug use contained sufficient public policy concerns to support a wrongful discharge claim after the worker was fired.
The general manager at a meat-processing plant showed that he was terminated in violation of public policy after he complained that the company continued to employ the owner’s son despite his continued use of methamphetamine.
After the son, who was the company’s previous general manager, admitted to a conviction on a felony drug charge during a USDA inspection, the agency filed an administrative complaint against the company, which jeopardized its licensing status. The agency withdrew the complaint only pursuant to a consent decree in which the son promised not to commit another drug felony.
Despite the decree, the owner’s son admitted that he continued to purchase and use drugs, sometimes while at work; other employees testified that his behavior was erratic and violent. Concerned that the plant’s safety approval was again in jeopardy, the owner eventually asked the plaintiff, an assistant manager, to become the new general manager. He agreed on the condition that he could fire the son if he continued to use drugs.
Only a month after becoming general manager, the plaintiff believed that the son was again under the influence of drugs at work. After a confrontation, the owner sided with her son and fired the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued, arguing that his discharge was unlawful, because it violated public policy. The court agreed. It explained that in general, an employer may fire an employee for any reason, as long as the termination does not violate public policy. In this case, there was a public policy that favored the safe and secure operation of meat- processing plants. Several state statutes required such plants to undergo regular safety inspections and meet certain safety standards as a condition of remaining open. Employment of a habitual drug user could jeopardize the health and safety of the meat coming out of the plant, and thus, the plaintiff was upholding public policy when he tried to fire the son, an admitted drug user. Therefore, his complaint could go on to trial.
This case describes how a court determines whether an employee’s termination violates public policy. Complaints about work conditions will not be protected if they don’t implicate public policy. For example, a worker who complains about a coworker’s drug use in an office setting may not have a wrongful discharge claim, because the dangers from the drug use will not affect the public at large.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Earls v. Hagemann Meat Co., 2008 WL 459004 unpub., (Cal. Ct. App., February 21, 2008)].
A former employer violated Ohio’s Trade Secret Act by memorizing information about his company and then using it for his own gain.
A pension analyst who memorized his employer’s client information and then quit his job to start his own company violated Ohio’s Trade Secrets Act when he used the information to solicit clients, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled.
The employee had worked for the actuarial company for five years before resigning to start a competing business. He did not take any physical documents when he left but used client data he had memorized to solicit at least 15 of his former employer’s clients to his new company.
The court found that even though the employee had never signed an employment contract or noncompete agreement, he had violated Ohio law. The important question was whether the information contained in the confidential customer lists constituted a trade secret. After finding that it did, the court held that the employee’s memorization and use of the information constituted wrongful misappropriation of a trade secret under the law. The method of misappropriation was unimportant.
This case explains that a trade secret does not need to be written in hard copy or in electronic form to be of value to its owner. Memorizing the client lists was as unlawful as stealing a paper document would have been. However, the court clarified that not every piece of information an employee remembers exposes him to liability. The law applies only if the information is a trade secret on its own. Simple information does not count.
-- Paul Freehling, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP
[For more information, see Al Minor & Assoc. Inc. v. Martin, -- N.E. 2d --, 2008 WL 343482 (Ohio, February 6, 2008)].