How would Supreme Court contender Amul Thapar be for employers?
It's Fourth of July week, which means not much is happening in the world of politics. (Yay!)
But on Monday, President Trump is expected to announce his nomination for Justice Anthony Kennedy's Supreme Court seat. During this period of relative calm, I thought it might be helpful to look at some employment-related decisions from the judges on the President's short list.
We will start today with Judge Amul Thapar, who is currently on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judge Thapar was born in Troy, Michigan, in 1969. His undergraduate degree is from Boston College, and his law degree is from the University of California at Berkeley. In 2008, President George W. Bush appointed him as a U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky. When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, President Trump considered Judge Thapar before deciding on Justice Neil Gorsuch. Judge Thapar joined the Sixth Circuit on May 25, 2017.
A more detailed bio is available here.
THREE FROM THAPAR
Using no particular methodology, I chose three employment law decisions by Judge Thapar. All are from the time that Judge Thapar was a district court judge. Based on these three decisions, my take is that Judge Thapar is certainly willing to give fair consideration to the employer's view but is not a reflexive "defense judge." He also writes well and is quite witty.
Case No. 1: Paulson v. Holder (2012). The plaintiff sued for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. Judge Thapar granted summary judgment to the employer on both claims. First, he said, the plaintiff's EEOC charge did not put the employer on notice that she was claiming sexual harassment, which defeats a harassment claim under Title VII.
The plaintiff also claimed that the employer retaliated against her by denying her a bonus and lowering her performance evaluation rating after she complained about the alleged harassment. Judge Thapar found that denial of the bonus was not a "materially adverse action." In addition, it was not retaliation that the employer gave her an overall "Exceeds Expectations" performance rating after her complaints, when previously she had been rated "Outstanding." According to Judge Thapar, "Faint praise may be damning, but it does not support a Title VII action." LOL.
Case No. 2: Click v. Thompson (2012). In Click, the plaintiff sued his government employer, claiming that he was terminated and not rehired (twice) because he was an ardent Democrat and his boss was a Republican. The plaintiff's legal claims were under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on violation of his First Amendment rights. Judge Thapar dismissed two of the claims (the initial termination, and one of the failures to rehire) based on the fact that the claims were untimely. However, he refused to dismiss the failure to rehire that fell within the statute of limitations.
Even though failure to hire is an "adverse employment action" for First Amendment purposes, the boss tried to argue that a failure to rehire was not. Judge Thapar responded, "[The Defendant]'s argument puts more weight on the prefix 're' than those two letters can bear." Hehe.
Case No. 3: Farmer v. Dixon Electric Systems (2013). The plaintiff, an electrician, was fired from her job after she was caught smoking on a hospital construction site. The plaintiff claimed that male electricians were caught smoking but were not fired. This was apparently true, but there was a non-discriminatory reason: Smoking was not a termination offense until the hospital demanded that it become one. The plaintiff was the first employee to be caught smoking at the site after the new policy went into effect. So Judge Thapar found that the plaintiff had not been discriminated against when she was fired.
Faint praise may be damning, but it does not support a Title VII action." -- The wit and wisdom of Judge Amul Thapar
The more interesting part of the case involved the use by the men of "portalets" on the worksite. These were porta-potties, but they had no tops, so passersby could see some of what was going on, if you know what I mean and I think you do know what I mean. Apparently, the plaintiff, as well as the men in the portalets, were all embarrassed at the level of exposure, and complaints were made. (Women were allowed to use real bathrooms.)
In her lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed it was sexual harassment for her to have to see the guys doing their thing. But Judge Thapar found that it was not "harassment based on sex" because men were at least as humiliated by the arrangement as the plaintiff was. He also found that the plaintiff's brief "exposures" to the men were not "severe or pervasive."
Finally, the plaintiff claimed she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the portalet arrangement. Judge Thapar nixed this claim, too, noting that the termination was for smoking at the construction site, that the plaintiff's employer actually did not want to terminate her but did so only because the hospital insisted on it, and that -- although the plaintiff complained about the portalets -- she did not claim that she thought she was being sexually harassed. Therefore, although she had complained, her complaints were not legally protected.
(The plaintiff also had claims for emotional distress.)
Judge Thapar granted summary judgment to the employer on all counts. No witty remarks in this opinion, unfortunately, but it's still an interesting read to someone who never heard of "topless portalets" until now.
Have a happy Fourth, and I'll follow up this week with more analysis of employment-related opinions from the judges on President Trump's short list.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010