Employment Project Filed Fourth Circuit Brief Supporting Verdict Against Government Contractor for Racial Animus in Contracting – Appeals Court Confirms Compensory Damages Award
The Employment Discrimination Project filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Worldwide Network Services v. DynCorp International (No. 08-2108 (L) (4th Cir.) on March 17, 2009. The amicus brief urged the Fourth Circuit to uphold a judgment in favor of Worldwide Network Services LLC (“WWNS), a minority-owned business. Worldwide Network Services sued its principal contractor, DynCorp International LLC, for terminating a contract due to racial animus in violation of Section 1981. A jury awarded WWNS $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.
On appeal, DynCorp argued that the Fourth Circuit should extend the standard articulated in the Title VII case of Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., Inc., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004)(en banc), to Section 1981 cases. In Hill, the Fourth Circuit ruled that an employer is liable for the actions of a subordinate employee under Title VII or the ADEA only when the subordinate is the one “principally responsible for the [employment] decision or the actual decision-maker for the employer.” The Lawyers’ Committee’s amicus brief argued that the Fourth Circuit should not extend the holding in Hill to the Section 1981 context, due to important distinctions between the Title VII and Section 1981, in both scope and purpose.
The Appeals Court on July 23, 2010, upheld the compensatory damages award. It did not reach the issue of whether Hill applied to Section 1981. Instead, it found that four people collectively decided to terminate the subcontract and that “Hill does not enable DynCorp to self-select the decisionmaker whose motives are the purest.” The Court vacated the jury’s punitive damages award based on Section 1981 and remanded the case for retrial on whether punitive damages should be awarded based on tortious interference with contract.
The Lawyers’ Committee brief was drafted with the assistance of Jonathan Mook, Bernard DiMuro, Michael Barnsback, and Hillary Collyer of the law firm of DiMuro Ginsburg, PC; Sarah Crawford, Tricia Jefferson, and John Brittain of the Lawyers’ Committee, as well as Emily Sala (a student intern from American University) and Caroline Camic (a student intern from Harvard Law School). Click here for our brief.
Lawyers’ Committee Celebrates Victory in Fourth Circuit Sexual Harassment Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 6, 2011, in the case of Harris v. Baltimore, reinstated a claim of workplace sex discrimination arising out of a workplace atmosphere that was highly sexualized and offensive. Lynette Harris, an electrician with the City of Baltimore, was subjected to profane, sexually explicit language and a hostile work environment with sexually explicit pictures. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the city, concluding that Harris (1) had not offered sufficient evidence that the harassment was because of her sex and (2) had not offered sufficient evidence that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment. The Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, reversed the lower court’s ruling and cited extensive evidence in the record showing that the workplace was highly sexualized and Harris’ supervisor repeatedly said that women working there were not welcome. The decision was not a total victory for Harris, as the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the City of Baltimore on Harris’s failure to promote claim. Lawyers’ Committee supported Ms. Harris’ appeal along with other civil rights groups who joined an amicus brief prepared by the National Women’s Law Center. To read the brief, please click here.
Employment Project Files Fourth Circuit Brief in 1981 Case
On May 14, 2010, the Employment Project, along with co-counsel from the law firm of Bernabei and Wachtel and the civil rights appellate clinic at Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law, filed a Fourth Circuit appeal in a Section 1981 case, Ford v. Zalco, No. 10-1254 (4th Cir. 2010).
Appellant Michael Ford alleges that an attorney for a condominium association engaged in racially-motivated actions that culminated in Ford’s termination as a building manager in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act. After the district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Ford appeals to the Fourth Circuit, alleging that the district court erred on a number of grounds. Ford asserts that the district court erred as a matter of law in (1) determining that certain comments did not reflect racial animus; (2) failing to consider circumstantial evidence of discrimination; (3) requiring an employment relationship between Ford and the attorney for the condo association to prove a Section 1981 claim; and (4) treating Ford’s prayer for emotional distress damages under Section 1981 as a separate claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Click here for the brief.
For purposes of the appeal, Sarah Crawford of the Lawyers’ Committee is serving as co-counsel with Lynne Bernabei, Alan Kabat, Andrea Loveless, and Peter Whelan of the law firm of Bernabei & Wachtel as well as Michael Foreman of the Pennsylvania State University’s Dickinson School of Law.
