What to Know About Route EEO A look in the rear-view mirror, monitor the crossroads, check for blind spots, and

look ahead at developments in the enforcement of laws prohibiting employment

discrimination.

Kristin H. Johnson, Executive Director, Iowa Civil Rights Commission

U.S. Supreme Court

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2028 (2015).

Hani Khan, 19, worked at Hollister, an Abercrombie subsidiary, and was fired for wearing her hijab. She is one of

three women who sued Abercrombie for failing to accommodate their religious requirements.

• “[A]n applicant need only show that his need for an

accommodation was a motivating factor in the

employer’s decision.”

• The intentional discrimination prohibition of Title VII

disallows certain motives, regardless of the employer’s

actual knowledge.

Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.,

___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015).

• There is no independent duty to reasonably accommodate pregnancy under Title VII.

• The Court established a modified McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis for claims arising under the PDA rather than a failure-to-accommodate analysis as traditionally used for disabilities. The prima facie case requires:

• A showing that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and its reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden.

• A showing that the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant employees while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant employees.

• A showing that the policies of the employer operate discriminatorily in practice.

Iowa Supreme Court

McQuistion v. City of Clinton

872 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2015)

• Holding: There is no stand-alone duty to reasonably

accommodate pregnancy under Iowa Code Chapter 216.

• Iowa courts will apply the same McDonnell-Douglas

burden-shifting analysis used in Young v. UPS.

Baker v. City of Iowa City

867 N.W.2d 44 (Iowa 2015)

Under the facts of the case, enforcement of an

antidiscrimination ordinance did not violate the employer’s

rights of freedom of association, freedom of speech, due

process, and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc.

860 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 2015)

• Iowa Code § 216.6A only applies

prospectively, to conduct that occurred

after its effective date of July 1, 2009.

• An employee can assert a wage

discrimination claim under Iowa Code §

216.6.

Iowa Court of Appeals

Polk v. Dep’t of Admin. Servs.

____ N.W.2d ____, 2015 WL 1817031

(Iowa Ct. App. April 22, 2015)

(unpublished)

• Defendants failed to preserve the issue for its review

because the defendants did not present this argument to

the district court.

• The Court specifically noted the defendants’ failure to

even mention “significant factor” in either its proposed

jury instructions or in its objection.

Wright v. Ross Holdings, LLC

____ N.W.2d ____, 2015 WL 1848534

(Iowa Ct. App. April 22, 2015)

• The conduct did not affect the terms or

conditions of her employment as required to

establish a hostile work environment claim.

• Wright was not constructively discharged.

Federal 8th Circuit

Minnihan v. Mediacom Commc’ns Corp.

779 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 2015)

• Driving was an essential function of position.

• Minnehan was unable to perform the essential

function with a reasonable accommodation.

• Mediacom made a good faith effort to assist in

finding a reasonable accommodation.

Hilde v. City of Eveleth

777 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2015)

• Hilde’s retirement eligibility not a

nondiscriminatory reason for failing to

promote.

• Fact issues precluded summary judgment.

Walz v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.

779 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2015)

• Walz failed to demonstrate that she was able to

perform essential functions of her position.

• Ameriprise was not liable under ADA for its

failure to accommodate employee.

Sellers v. Deere & Co.

791 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2015)

• No demotion as adverse employment action.

• Increased duties did not constitute adverse

employment action.

• Failed to establish prima facie case of

harassment.

Iowa District Court Jury

Verdicts

Tibodeau v. CDI, LLC

• Sexual harassment

• Retaliation

• Sexual discrimination/constructive discharge

• Plaintiff's verdict as to defendant CDI only.

• Back Pay - $50,000

• Past Emotional Distress $75,000

• Future Emotional Distress - $100,000.

Hollinger v. State

• Employment Discrimination - Plaintiff alleges defendant

failed to hire her for position based upon her actual

disability

• Directed verdict for Defendant – holding Plaintiff was not

disabled as defined in Iowa Code Chapter 216

• Plaintiff has appealed

Huber v. Krestena

• Employee was terminated for failing to provide Dr.'s note

stating that he did not have AIDS

• Verdict for Plaintiff - $26,283

• 4,283 (past earnings); $22,000 (emotional distress)

Schilling v. Saur Danfoss

• Sexual orientation harassment, retaliation

• Jury verdict for defense

Gray-Fisher v. State of Iowa

• Sex and age discrimination

• Jury verdict for defense

Schemel v. Laxmee

• Sexual Harassment

• National origin harassment

• Retaliation

• Back Pay: $446

• Past Emotional distress: $150,000

• Future Emotional distress: $350,000

Oyler v. Laxmee

• Sexual Harassment

• National origin harassment

• Retaliation

• Back Pay: $16,484.01

• Past Emotional distress: $200,000

• Future Emotional distress: $400,000

• Work Comp punitive damages: $100,000;

Vetter v. State of Iowa

• Disability Discrimination

• Verdict for Plaintiff - $599,732.13

2016 Legislative Efforts

Reasonable Accommodation

of Pregnancy

• SF 313

• HF 2165

• SF 2098

• Simply provide an employer shall provide reasonable

accommodations for pregnancy

• Provides examples of reasonable accommodation

• Excludes from reasonable accommodation any action that

would impose an undue hardship on the employer

• HF 2165 also gives examples of actions constituting

prohibited discrimination, such as reassignment to avoid job

modifications, retaliation, and requiring leave where

reasonable accommodation could allow the employee to

continue to work.

SF 313 and HF 2165

SF 2098

• Much more extensive

• Requires accommodating lactation/pumping

• Defines undue hardship in detail

• Lists specific prohibited actions

• Creates a rebuttable presumption than an accommodation

does not impose an undue hardship if the employer

provides a similar accommodation to another class of

employees

• Notice requirement

Wage Gap Task Force

• SSB 3071

• HF 2159

• New subsection with 7 new discriminatory practices:

• Prohibit employees from sharing compensation information

• Require employees to sign a waiver agreeing not to share compensation information

• Retaliate against an employee for sharing compensation information

• Seek salary history about prospective employees from former employers

• Release salary history information about former employees to their prospective employer

• Advertise a job opening anywhere without including minimum pay rate for the position

• Paying a new hire less than the advertised minimum pay rate

• Increases the employer’s burden to prove bona fide factor

other than protected classification for a wage disparity.

• Provides an affirmative defense shall not apply if the

employee demonstrates that an alternative business

practice exists that would serve the same business

purpose without producing the wage disparity.

• Provides that the affirmative defense is not available if

the bona fide factors cited by employer account for the

entire pay differential.

• Also Creates an Equal Pay Task Force to study:

• Extent of wage disparities

• Factors that cause the wage disparities

• Economic consequences of the wage disparities

• Actions likely to lead to the elimination and prevention of

such disparities.

Questions?