Statements can Haunt: Jury Can Hold Company Guilty of Discrimination Based Upon Response to Charge of Discrimination
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently highlighted the importance of a company’s response to a charge of discrimination. The Court of Appeals held in Jones v. National American University that a company’s position statement responding to a charge of discrimination before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) could be admitted to support a verdict that the company had engaged in age discrimination in violation of civil rights statutes.
Jones arose when an admissions representative for National American University (“NAU”) did not receive a promotion to the position of director of admissions. The employee believed that she did not receive the position due to age discrimination, and brought a charge of age discrimination before the EEOC. NAU responded that she hadn’t been promoted because of deficient performance. The EEOC found there was no probable cause for age discrimination and dismissed the charge.
Jones then brought suit, and presented evidence that she was the most qualified for the position. In response, NAU presented evidence that she hadn’t been promoted because of her lack of management experience. To impeach this testimony, Jones introduced NAU’s response to the charge in which it had argued that she hadn’t been promoted because of deficient performance, not because of a lack of management experience.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones, holding that NAU failed to promote her because of her age. NAU appealed, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict. The Eighth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to admit NAU’s response to the EEOC charge, even though it had excluded the remainder of the file, including the dismissal of the charge, as prejudicial. The district court allowed Jones to use the response for impeachment of NAU’s witnesses who were testifying that they didn’t promote her because of a lack of management experience.
The court’s decision in Jones is a stark reminder to employers about the importance of submitting an effective, accurate and complete position statement in response to an employee’s charge of discrimination. Such position statements may come back to haunt an employer in litigation. As a result, it is well worth the initial investment to conduct an appropriate investigation and draft the best possible position statement at the charge stage of the dispute.
- Joe Schmitt is a shareholder with Nilan Johnson Lewis and concentrates his practice on labor and employment law.
