Megan K. Mechak
Wed, 08/30/2023
Earlier this month, in Hamilton v. Dallas County, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, reversed three decades of its precedent and significantly expanded the conduct that is actionable discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII protects workers against discrimination based on their membership in a protected class. For more information on Title VII and employment discrimination laws generally, visit https://www.mselaborlaw.com/practice-areas/employment-discrimination-and-civil-rights.
The Fifth Circuit decided almost thirty years ago, in Dollis v. Rubin, that “Title VII was designed to address ultimate employment decisions, not to address every decision made by employers that arguably might have some tangential effect upon those ultimate decisions.” Although the Court subsequently clarified that “ultimate employment decisions” includes “only ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting or compensating,” the Court’s precedent left many workers in the Circuit left without recourse when their employer discriminated against them. As one judge on the Court noted last year, in Hardison v. Skinner, “[n]o other court of appeals applies so narrow a concept of an adverse employment action,” as the Fifth Circuit.
The facts of the case before the Court demonstrate how harshly its earlier precedent treated workers – the Hamilton case centered on the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department’s scheduling policy, which permitted male officers, but not female officers, to select full weekends off. When nine female officers sued, alleging that the sex-based policy violated Title VII, the district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, citing the “ultimate employment decision” rule. A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit initially applied that precedent to affirm the decision.
In reversing thirty years of precedent, the en banc Court concluded that its earlier ruling that only “ultimate employment decisions” were actionable ignored the provisions of Title VII which make it unlawful for an employer to “otherwise discriminate against” an employee “with respect to [their] terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” In short, according to the Court, “Congress did not say that Title VII liability is limited to ultimate employment decisions.”
The decision expands protections for workers who believe they have been treated differently due to their membership in a protected class, including those like the Hamilton plaintiffs who allege they have been subjected to discrimination based on their sex. If you believe your employer treated you differently because of your sex, contact us at info@mselaborlaw.com.
