Reference no: EM132300758
Paul Smith, department superintendent of Acme Bag Company, noticed that the conveyor belt was jammed with paper bags. He told Mary Hogan, a polypropylene (PE) inserter on the machine, to get a pallet and remove the bags from the belt. Mary replied, “I am not able to because my back is bothering me.” Paul replied, “Get one that you are able to handle.” Mary replied, “I will not do it.” Paul said, “I think you can do it.” Mary said, “No.” Paul said, “You are terminated; clock out and leave the plant.” Mary Hogan did just that.
Mary Hogan was initially employed by Acme as an unskilled worker; she worked in various unskilled positions throughout the plant during the 10 years of her employment. Eighteen months after her initial employment, Mary filed a charge with the Mill City Civil Rights Commission under the city ordinance alleging that the company discriminated because of her gender. She had been given a two-day suspension for refusing to mop the floor. She alleged that males and minorities were not required to do so. Mary did not file a grievance under the labor agreement over the suspension. A similar charge was filed with the EEOC under Title VII. The charge was investigated by the city. Before the investigation under the EEOC charge, Mary amended the charge, alleging that Acme had refused to allow her to return to light duty of lifting 10 pounds or less. She alleged that this was a violation of Title VII and state law. Acme had not received any medical report of Ms. Hogan’s condition for 11 months. This amended complaint was based on the fact that Ms. Hogan was not given the opportunity to work for the 11-month period. The state civil rights specialist discovered that Ms. Hogan had not worked for 11 months and inquired about the absence. The specialist was told by Acme that Ms. Hogan was on a medical leave. Acme stated they would be glad to have her return to work if the company doctor approved it. Acme further stated, when questioned, that the reason Ms. Hogan had not returned to work was that she had not contacted Acme stating that she was physically able to perform the job in the plant that she had previously selected or that she could perform any other job.
Acme received a medical report from the company doctor stating that Ms. Hogan was able to lift only 5 to 20 pounds. Eleven months before her stated condition, Ms. Hogan had signed a statement that she would perform only the job as bottom feeder and table loader, jobs that required lifting 20 to 35 pounds and 60 to 75 pounds respectively. This is the reason Acme gave her medical leave.
Ms. Hogan had applied for unemployment insurance, which Acme originally contested on the grounds that the claimant was on medical leave. It was ruled that Hogan was available for work, and she received unemployment compensation. The notice to allow unemployment benefits was not received by the Acme plant. It was sent to the parent company’s office, which failed to forward it and did not appeal. No medical leave was applied for by Ms. Hogan under the terms of the labor agreement. However, Ms. Hogan’s status was considered a voluntary medical leave during the period she was off work. Premiums for her health insurance were paid by Acme rather than terminating her as permitted by the labor agreement. During the 11-month period Ms. Hogan was considered by Acme as not available for work but was never contacted to determine her status.
When Hogan was called to return to work after being contacted by the civil rights specialist, she stated that she was still under a doctor’s care. After two weeks she inquired when she could see a company doctor. On advice of corporate counsel, the personnel coordinator arranged an appointment. The company doctor stated that she could return to light work, but lifting 40 to 50 pounds repetitively would cause back symptoms. Ms. Hogan was notified of her physical condition, which permitted her to return to work a week later. She agreed to return to her old job of bottom feeder (requiring the lifting of 25 to 40 pounds).
The next day she alleged that she hurt her back. A meeting was called to determine what job Hogan could do. With the union present, she was asked what she wanted to do. She selected the table loader job and was returned to that job for the remainder of the day. (This required the lifting of 40 to 50 pounds, which was contrary to the doctor’s advice.) On the following day, her husband called and stated that she hurt her back on the previous day and wanted an appointment to see another doctor. Hogan assumed that this other doctor would be somebody other than the company doctor. She was told she could see any doctor whom she wanted. She requested the company doctor. An appointment was made with the company doctor the following day. Nothing was heard from Hogan after her physical examination until her husband called five days later. He wanted to know what the doctor had found, stating that the doctor never told her the results of the recent examination. When told that nothing was wrong with her, she stated that she wanted to see another doctor. She went to see another doctor. Ten days after her most recent physical examination she was ordered to return to work in the next three days. Rather than return to work, she saw another doctor who authorized her to return to work. However, rather than return to work, she saw another doctor who authorized her to return the next day but no heavy lifting. She reported to work the next day. She told her supervisor that she could not load tables.
As a result of her statement, a meeting was held on the same day with the union and management. Hogan requested that she be taken off the table loader job and be assigned to PE inserting. It was explained to her that this job requires lifting 50 to 70 pounds. Hogan performed the job of PE inserting until she was discharged for refusing to get a pallet. Her complaint to the state civil rights commission was again amended, stating that her discharge was due to retaliation for filing the original complaint. As a result of the discharge, a grievance was filed under the labor agreement and the dispute was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator upheld the discharge for insubordination.
The state civil rights commission, after an investigation, determined that there was no basis for the gender discrimination charges regarding the suspension for refusing to mop the floor. However, the commission had reasonable cause to believe that Hogan was discriminated against for not returning to work for 11 months and that the discharge was in retaliation for filing a complaint. The civil rights commission in its conciliation proposal demanded $9,000 in back pay and reinstatement. A conciliation meeting is the next step. If this failed, the matter would go before the state civil rights commission hearing examiner; an appeal from that decision would be to the district court.
Management has to make a decision to settle or fight. What would you recommend? What are the bases for your recommendation?
What mistakes were made by the company in handling this matter?