Mixed-Motive Liability Theory Is Improper Under The LMRDA

Posted on March 22, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SERAFINN v. LOCAL 722 (March 12, 2010)

Mark Serafinn is a member of Local 722 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In fact, he served three terms as its president. Serafinn is also a member of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union ("TDU"), a large and active dissident group opposed to the current international leadership. Serafinn alleges that the presidents of the union and the joint council, which is a group of leaders from locals in the same region, colluded to have internal disciplinary charges brought against him. The joint council suspended Serafinn and ordered restitution. Serafinn brought an action against both the local union and the joint council under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He alleged that the actions taken against him were taken without due process in retaliation for his exercise of free speech and assembly rights, all in violation of the Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the joint council. The claim against the local union proceeded to a jury trial, where Serafinn was awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages and $55,000 in punitive damages. After trial, the court denied a motion by Serafinn for relief from the summary judgment granted to the joint council on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The court also awarded attorneys fees to Serafinn, but in a lesser amount than requested. The union local appeals. Serafinn cross appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed the local's contention that the district court should have given a mixed-motive instruction. The district court had instructed the jury that Serafinn's exercise of free speech had to be a "but for" cause, not just a motivating factor. In that situation, the Court stated, a mixed-motive instruction would be inappropriate. The Court noted that some courts have approved of mixed-motive liability theories in cases under the Act but that the Supreme Court's decision in Gross overruled that approach. The Court then addressed the local's challenge to a limiting instruction with respect to a witness’ misdemeanor convictions. Although the convictions may be admissible for some purposes, Rule 609 prohibits their admission to attack general character for truthfulness. Here, the lower court properly allowed the convictions into evidence for some purposes but erred when it allowed the jury to consider them for improper impeachment purposes. Nevertheless, the Court found no prejudice from the error and declined to order a new trial. Addressing Serafinn's cross-appeal, the Court concluded that his "new evidence" was simply cumulative. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's consideration and decision with respect to the award of attorney's fees.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

ADA Mixed-Motive Plaintiff Must Now Prove That Her Employer Would Not Have Fired Her But For The Disability

Posted on February 19, 2010 by Michael Rigney

SERWATKA v. ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC. (January 15, 2010)

Kathleen Serwatka was an employee of Rockwell Automation. Upon her discharge, she brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She alleged that she was discharged because her employer considered her to be disabled. At trial, the jury indicated its belief on a special verdict form that a) Rockwell terminated Serwatka because it believed her to be disabled and b) that Rockwell would have fired her anyway. Treating the verdict as a mixed-motive finding, the court awarded no damages but did grant declaratory and injunctive relief and awarded attorneys fees. Rockwell appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans, and Van Bokkelen vacated and remanded. The Court began its analysis with the Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse. In that case, the Supreme Court held the an employer could violate Title VII even if an improper motive was not the only motive for a termination decision. It also held, however, that an employer would escape liability if it could prove that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the improper motive. Courts applied that Title VII decision to other anti-discrimination statutes. A few years later, Congress codified the Price Waterhouse holding that an improper motive need not be the only motive for a plaintiff to recover. It provided limited remedies, not an absence of liability, in the situation where the employer proves that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the improper motive. Specifically, it allowed for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees. The ADA incorporates by reference the mixed-motive remedy provisions of Title VII. It was on this basis that the district court fashioned its relief. While the case was on appeal, however, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gross. In Gross, the Supreme Court held, notwithstanding Price Waterhouse, that mixed-motive claims were not allowed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Supreme Court concluded that Congress' decision to specifically incorporate the Price Waterhouse approach into Title VII and not to incorporate it into ADEA indicated its intent not to authorize mixed-motive claims under that statute. The "because of" language of the statute therefore required "but for" causation. Like ADEA, the ADA does not include an expressed mixed-motive provision and it uses the same "because of" language. The Court therefore concluded that an ADA plaintiff must establish that the employer would not have fired her absent the improper motive. The special verdict form below indicates that Serwatka failed to do so. The Court vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Rockwell's favor.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,