Daily Labor Report® is the objective resource the nation’s foremost labor and employment professionals read and rely on, providing reliable, analytical coverage of top labor and employment...
Oct. 19 — A New York City teacher who was absent from work for four months after a car accident has no claim that the city discriminated against her when it gave her a bonus—based on students' achievement—that was smaller than her colleagues got, a federal appeals court ruled Oct. 19.
A lower court erroneously concluded that reducing Catharine Davis's bonus couldn't be an adverse employment action under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the collective bargaining agreement gave the employer wide discretion regarding bonuses, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said. Even when an employer has “the right to allocate a bonus on any ground,” it must do so in a way that doesn't violate the law, the appeals court said.
Nevertheless, it ruled against Davis because she didn't present any evidence that the city had discriminatory motivation in awarding her a smaller bonus, which is an essential element of a discrimination claim.
Judges Pierre N. Leval, Chester J. Straub, and Christopher F. Droney joined in the unsigned opinion.
Davis's recovery from the car accident kept her out of work for about three months, and she was out of work for a fourth month because of grand jury service.
The school received $3,000 per full-time employee for its bonus pool. The collective bargaining agreement suggested the entire staff should receive a distribution, but it gave the school's compensation committee discretion to vary the awards individual employees received. In particular, it allowed smaller bonuses for personnel who worked less than the full school year.
Davis was told she would have to share her bonus with the substitute teacher who covered her classroom during her absence, and she received $1,000. She initiated a charge of disability discrimination after learning that a $3,000 bonus was awarded to a teacher who missed about two months of work for maternity leave, and $3,000 was awarded to another teacher who missed two months as a result of being transferred to another school.
The lower court ruled that “the employer’s decision not to award a discretionary bonus … cannot constitute an adverse employment action” because Davis had no reason to expect or rely on it. the court reached this conclusion by relying on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in Hunt v. City of Markham, 219 F.3d 649, 83 FEP Cases 635 (7th Cir. 2000), which held that denying a bonus doesn't affect terms or conditions of employment when the employee didn't even anticipate it.
At the outset, the appeals court said, the lower court erred by relying on out-of-circuit precedent in reaching its conclusion. Hunt is “not the law in this circuit,” the Second Circuit said.
Hunt's reasoning that expectation of a benefit is a factor in deciding whether its denial is an adverse employment action was incorrect, the court said. Employees who sue for discrimination seldom have an entitlement to the benefits they seek, it said. If they did, discrimination laws would be unnecessary, the court said. Aggrieved employees “would have a valid claim based on contract or some other statute,” it said.
Although the school had discretion in how to distribute bonuses, it had to ensure that it didn't do so in a discriminatory way, the court said.
“The fact that the employer had the right to allocate a bonus on any ground that does not violate the law does not mean that the employer had the right to allocate it on a ground that did violate the law,” the Second Circuit said.
Davis represented herself. The city's law department represented the school.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jon Steingart in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan J. McGolrick at email@example.com
Text of the opinion is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Davis_v_NYC_Dept_of_Education_Docket_No_1401034_2d_Cir_Apr_07_201.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)