A Federal Court of Appeals recently reinstated a teacher’s Title VII and Equal Pay Act suit based on an administrator’s off-hand comment. In Kellogg v. Ball State University d/b/a Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics and Humanities, (No. 20-1406, 7th Cir. 2021), the Seventh Circuit found that an “offhand remark”, made 10 years earlier, was evidence of the school’s discriminatory intent. In 2006, Cheryl Kellogg was hired as a science teacher by the Indiana Academy (“the Academy), a residential public high school for gifted high school upperclassmen. During salary negotiations with Dr. Williams, the Academy’s director, Williams told Kellogg that “she didn’t need any more [money], because he knew her husband worked at Ball State University, “so they would have a fine salary.” Her starting salary was then set at $32,000.
After eleven years with the Academy, Kellogg complained to the dean about her salary, asserting that she was paid less than her similarly situated male colleagues. The dean responded that “the issue was salary compression,” because those who were hired after her began at higher salaries. According to the dean, Kellogg’s salary had increased 36.45% during her time at the Academy, while her colleagues’ salaries had increased by a smaller percentage. Kellogg responded by filing a federal lawsuit, asserting violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act.
The District Court granted the Academy’s Motion for Summary Judgment, because it found that the Academy provided gender-neutral explanations for Kellogg’s pay. When Kellogg appealed, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit held that “…the Academy blatantly discriminated against Kellogg by telling her that, because her husband worked, she did not need any more starting pay. Such clear discrimination calls the sincerity of the Academy’s rationales into question.”
On appeal, the Academy argued that Dr. Williams’ statement was a “stray remark” with “no real link” to Kellogg’s pay. Furthermore, the Academy contended that the statement occurred outside the statute of limitations period, and thus, could not establish liability. The Appellate Court rejected the Academy’s statute of limitations argument, finding that under the “paycheck accrual rule,” “a new cause of action for pay discrimination arises every time a plaintiff receives a paycheck resulting from an earlier discriminatory compensation practice.” Applying this rule, the Court found that “each of Kellogg’s paychecks gave rise to a new cause of action for pay discrimination.” Moreover, the Court found that “Williams’ alleged discriminatory statement casts doubt on the Academy’s non-discriminatory explanations for Kellogg’s salary, and Kellogg can rely on the statement even though Williams uttered it outside the limitations window.”
Federal Appellate Court Affirms District Court’s Ruling that a School District Did Not Discriminate when Terminating a Non-Tenured History Teacher who Espoused Holocaust Denial Theories and Anti-Semitic Views
On April 22, 2020, the US Appellate Court for the Third Circuit issued its decision in Ali v. Woodbridge Township School District et. al., No. 19-2217 (3rd Cir. 2020) affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to a school district, Board of Education, superintendent, and principal. Plaintiff, Jason Ali, who is of Egyptian descent and a non-practicing Muslim, was a non-tenured history teacher at Woodbridge High School alleged in his suit that he was terminated on the basis of his race, ethnicity, and religion. For his world history class, Ali posted links to articles on a school-sponsored website such as “Article in Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried out 9/11 Attacks—but blames others for them” and “The Jews are like a Cancer. Woe to the world if they become strong”. Ali also taught Holocaust denial theory to his students. When a reporter questioned the principal about the links on the website, the principal responded that he would take them down and investigate. Ali was fired the next day. Ali’s lawsuit alleged violations of employment anti-discrimination laws, hostile work and environment and violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and academic freedom.
The Federal Appellate Court found that Defendants articulated three non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination, which included his dissemination of links to anti-Semitic online articles through the school’s official channels, Ali’s showing of no remorse for his conduct, and his teaching holocaust denial theory to his students. The Court found the reasons to be legitimate and non-discriminatory. The Court also found that Ali’s First Amendment rights were not violated because “teachers do not have a protected First Amendment right to decide the content of their lessons or how the material should be presented to their students.” Please click below to read the Court’s opinion.
U.S. Department of Labor Announces Overtime Final Rule
On September 24, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division released a final rule concerning overtime, effective January 1, 2020, that will increase the salary threshold, by approximately 50%, that so-called “white collar” employees must be paid in order to be classified as “exempt” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Employees who do not meet the new heightened salary threshold of $684 per week (which equates to $35,568 per year) will be considered non-exempt and thus eligible for overtime pay. The DOL estimates that this change will impact approximately 1.3 million workers.
U.S. Department of Labor Confirms Special Ed Meetings as FMLA Eligible
In an opinion letter issued on August 8, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour opined that parents attending school meetings concerning individualized education programs (IEPs) for children with serious health conditions triggers intermittent FMLA leave protection.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program rescinded
On September 5, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an official memorandum rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which allowed certain individuals to receive deferred action from deportation and eligibility for temporary U.S. work permits. The change has impact across many U.S. employers, including school districts. This discussion offers a summary of the key aspects for employees covered by DACA and their employers.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State which further clarified what constitutes a “supervisor” under Title VII. In this case, the court held that an employer can be held vicariously liable under Title VII for the acts of its supervisors, i.e., those employees who are empowered to take “tangible employment actions: hire, fire, reassign and other actions resulting in substantive employment changes. However, the U.S. Supreme Court made equally clear that even if the employee does not have such power, courts are entitled to see the employee as a supervisor if the employer relies on the employee to make those substantive employment decisions. Read the case summary now to see how this decision may impact your school district.
Isolated incidents of offensive and boorish behavior that is not perpetrated because a hostility to race of gender will not support hostile work environment claims. In this case from The Federal Court of Appeals in New York, the court clearly establish the elements of a successful claim and describes the necessary elements of a retaliation claim. This case will help your school district to understand the elements of such a cause of action to derail such claims before they manifest.
