labor lawAdivision of labor law center

A recent federal court ruling requires that employers be even more vigilant about seemingly “casual” negative remarks in the workplace.

 

This case heard by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals underscores the fact that supervisors and even coworkers should not ask questions about or discuss an employee’s religion, national ancestry or country of origin. Nor should employers make derogatory remarks about Muslims or members of other religions, even in passing.

 

It also emphasizes the importance of an employer conducting anti-discrimination training for all managers, after any reported incident.

 

In EEOC v. Go Daddy Software Inc. the court ruled that two passing remarks, more than a year apart, by two different supervisors, were enough to show a pattern of illegal discrimination against a Muslim employee.

 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged discrimination based on religion and national ancestry. Youseff Bouamama, a Muslim born in Morocco, was hired by the company in late September, 2001. In December 2001, the employee’s hiring manager overheard him speaking French to a customer. The manager quizzed the employee on his religion and birthplace. Shortly after the 911 terrorist attacks on New York, the supervisor also made comments to the effect that Muslims needed to die.

 

Nineteen months later, in April 2003 a different Go Daddy Software supervisor again asked whether Bouamama was Muslim and whether he was from Morocco.

 

Those two comments ended up costing the employer a total of $200,000.

 

Employee Bouamama reported both incidents to Human Resources – the first incident after 6 months and the second incident the day it occurred.

 

Two days later, Bouamama was interviewed for a supervisory position, but did not receive the promotion. During a reorganization later that month, Bouamama was given a choice between being laid off or transferring to another position. He also requested a transfer to another department, which was denied.

 

The jury ruled that Bouamama was the victim of illegal discrimination. In addition, they found that he was terminated as retaliation when he complained of this discrimination to HR.

 

Most importantly, the appeals court found that these two incidents were not “offhand comments” or “isolated incidents.” Instead, they determined that the two comments by different managers, more than a year apart, constituted a pattern.

Last 10 posts by Jolie

• New Massachusetts Personnel File Law - September 3rd, 2010
• Missouri Governor: No Sexual Orientation Discrimination - August 20th, 2010
• Oregon Limits Use of Credit History - July 2nd, 2010
• Rhode Island Discrimination Update - June 18th, 2010
• New Disability Nondiscrimination Advisor Online - May 19th, 2010
• Wellness Plans under Health Reform - April 16th, 2010
• Federal Court Allows Tip Pooling - April 7th, 2010
• Indiana Take Your Gun to Work Law - April 2nd, 2010
• New EEOC Discrimination Task Force - March 19th, 2010
• Arkansas Safety and Health Conferences 2010 - March 10th, 2010