FHKA recently received a favorable decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholding the dismissal of sex and national origin discrimination claims. In Voltz v. Erie County, Mr. Voltz, a Hispanic male, was promoted over female applicants to the position of Director of the County Department of Job and Family Services. Months after his promotion, Voltz failed to report to work after being arrested and charged with rape. Based upon the seriousness of the charges and the negative publicity such an allegation carries, the board immediately terminated Voltz’s employment. The criminal charges against Voltz were subsequently dropped and he re-applied to his former position but was rejected. Instead, a Caucasian female was awarded the recently vacant position.
Voltz sued claiming discrimination based upon his gender and race. However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals both found that Voltz could not establish discrimination for several reasons. First, both courts found that Voltz could not prove the employer held an unlawful discriminatory intent. The Court recognized the “same actor” defense – essentially, Voltz could not overcome the glaring fact that the same board that terminated him had promoted him only months earlier to the top position. The Court found that the only thing that had changed during those months was that their director-the “face” of the department- had been arrested and charged with rape. The Court found that this provided the board with a legitimate business reason to terminate Voltz that was wholly unrelated to his race or gender. Second, Voltz was unable to overcome the board’s legitimate business reason for his removal because he was unable to point to any similarly situated co-workers who had been criminally charged but were treated differently. Therefore, there was no evidence of unlawful disparate treatment.
Voltz also attempted to utilize the “cat’s paw” theory of discrimination, but the Court rejected that argument. The cat’s paw is when one uses a person unwittingly or unwillingly to accomplish their own purpose. Voltz alleged the agency’s HR director disliked him because he was a male and the HR director had influence into the board’s decision-making. Voltz claimed the HR director’s discriminatory intent should be imputed to the board as well. However, the Court found that the evidence did not support that the HR director held any anti-male animus. The HR Director investigated a charge of harassment against Voltz before he was promoted to director. However, the HR director did not recommend any disciplinary action occur after the investigation was completed. She did, however, advise Voltz that his “command presence” style of management was not going to work well in an office of female employees. Voltz tried to use this lone statement as evidence of anti-male animus. The Court, however, found this one statement was merely advice on how to better manage the workforce. Further, had the HR director held animus, it would have been more probable that she would have recommended discipline, which she did not. The Court found the largest nail in the coffin for Voltz’s “cats paw” claim was that the HR Director also interviewed the applicants for the director position and ultimately recommended Voltz for the director position. The HR Director admittedly recommended his removal months later but the reason for recommending removal was legitimate, namely, that Voltz had been arrested and charged with a heinous crime that brought dishonor to the agency.
For additional information on this case, please contact Marc Fishel at mfishel@fishelhass.com or Paul Bernhart at pbernhart@fishelhass.com.
To read the newsletter in its entirety, please click here.