More on “Associational Discrimination”
As discussed previously here on the Blawg, “associational” discrimination has been in the news quite a bit lately.
Background
Most employers know that Title VII prohibits:
- discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin;
- discrimination against employees who oppose a Title VII violation or participate in an investigation, charge, proceeding, etc. involving an alleged Title VII violation; and
- retaliation against employees based on their protected activity.
Some employers, however, might not know that Title VII may also prohibit discrimination or retaliation based on an employee’s “association” with those in a protected class or who participate in protected activity.
Recent Cases
In Holcomb v. Iona College, for example, the Second Circuit granted Title VII protection to a white employee who claimed he was fired because his wife is black. In Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Sixth Circuit ruled that Title VII applies to an employee who was fired after his co-worker fiancee filed an EEOC discrimination charge.
Those and other cases had employers wondering just how far associational claims could go. If spouses and fiancees are potentially covered, what about siblings, parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and friends?
The Latest Case
A recent federal court decision in Oregon provides at least a partial answer.
In EEOC v. Qwest Corp., No. 05-1521-HO, the court ruled that a white employee who claimed he was fired because of his friendship with two Hispanic co-workers failed to show that the relationship “rose to a level sufficient to make a claim of associational discrimination.”
According to Qwest, a customer complained that he frequently saw the white employee at home with the two Hispanic employees during work hours. Qwest conducted an investigation and fired all three employees for reporting time spent at the house as work time.
In denying the claim, the court stated that associational claims must be based on a “significant connection” and not merely a “work-related friendship.” The court also pointed to evidence that the employer had no knowledge of the friendship when it terminated the employees.
What Should Employers Do?
Courts no doubt will continue to struggle with the definition of “associational.” The Oregon court’s “significant connection” test is pretty broad and could end up raising more questions than answers.
That said, employers should always ensure that all workplace decisions are based on purely legitimate non-discriminatory reasons. We suggest using the Blawg’s termination tools, which include potential associational claims as part of the analysis. Obviously, employers should be particularly careful when spouses, fiancees and other close relatives are employed by the same company.