![Orig img [edited] by אופק3152 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons](/uploads/2/6/9/6/26964783/4494916.png?291)
Employment litigation is ever expanding in both federal and state court. Employers must be proactive to prevent both legitimate and frivolous litigation. A recent case out of a New York State appeals court involving “associational discrimination” is a reminder as to how far reaching discrimination claims may go. In Chiara vs. Town of Newcastle, Jeffrey Chiara, a former town employee whose wife is Jewish, brought claims of religious discrimination and harassment against his previous employer in 2005. He was fired two years later on the grounds of misconduct. The plaintiff—who is not Jewish—claimed that other town employees made anti-Semitic remarks in his presence with intent to harass him, creating a hostile work environment, and that prejudice acted as a significant factor in his termination. While the trial court dismissed the claims in 2012, the Appellate Division reversed the discrimination claim last month. The appellate court held that Mr. Chiara had the right to pursue religious discrimination claims under federal and state law by virtue of the fact that he is "associated" with his wife, whose religion qualifies her as a protected class. The Court ruled that the laws exist to ensure that employers make employment decisions free from bias, whether that bias is directed towards the employee or to a third party with whom the employee associates. The logic of the decision could be expanded to apply to associational relationships other than marriage as well.
Employers would be well served to take precautions to avoid discrimination claims. For example, management-level employees should be trained based on the most up-to-date information. It is recommended that a company’s documentation be reviewed to be consistent with the latest federal and state labor law. Employee handbooks, anti-harassment policies, and “new hire” packets should similarly be revised and kept current, so that expectations are clear, and the message consistent. Additionally, if an employee is being terminated, the exit interview should be conducted objectively, thoroughly, and fairly; parting on respectful terms is often an effective way of avoiding future legal action altogether. Larger reduction-in-force processes must be planned thoughtfully, with particular concern for analyzing the selection criteria to make sure that there can be no claim of discriminatory motivation behind the termination decisions. Proactive planning is critical to ensure that an employer avoids lawsuits and is in compliance with federal and state labor law.
Employers would be well served to take precautions to avoid discrimination claims. For example, management-level employees should be trained based on the most up-to-date information. It is recommended that a company’s documentation be reviewed to be consistent with the latest federal and state labor law. Employee handbooks, anti-harassment policies, and “new hire” packets should similarly be revised and kept current, so that expectations are clear, and the message consistent. Additionally, if an employee is being terminated, the exit interview should be conducted objectively, thoroughly, and fairly; parting on respectful terms is often an effective way of avoiding future legal action altogether. Larger reduction-in-force processes must be planned thoughtfully, with particular concern for analyzing the selection criteria to make sure that there can be no claim of discriminatory motivation behind the termination decisions. Proactive planning is critical to ensure that an employer avoids lawsuits and is in compliance with federal and state labor law.