{"id":1049,"date":"2024-01-08T20:48:03","date_gmt":"2024-01-09T00:48:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1049"},"modified":"2024-01-08T20:48:18","modified_gmt":"2024-01-09T00:48:18","slug":"fifth-circuit-refuses-to-revive-eeoc-covid-era-mask-bias-suit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/08\/fifth-circuit-refuses-to-revive-eeoc-covid-era-mask-bias-suit\/","title":{"rendered":"Fifth Circuit Refuses To Revive EEOC COVID-Era Mask Bias Suit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Emilee N. Crowther, and Christian J. Palacios<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/i><\/b>In EEOC v. U.S. Drug Mart, Inc., No. 23-50075, 2024 WL 64766, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan 5, 2024), the Fifth Circuit refused to resurrect<\/a> an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a Texas pharmacy created a hostile work environment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the \u201cADA\u201d) by reprimanding an asthmatic employee for wearing a mask during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.\u00a0 This case illustrates the Fifth Circuit\u2019s high evidentiary standards associated with establishing the existence of a hostile work environment, especially with regards to demonstrating that the conduct was \u201csufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim\u2019s employment.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/i><\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The charging party, David Calzada, was a pharmacy technician at U.S. Drug Mart (d\/b\/a Fabens Pharmacy).\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Mr. Calzada suffered from asthma, and elected to wear a face mask to work on March 26, 2020. Id<\/i>.\u00a0 However, after arrival, the store manager informed Mr. Calzada that mask-wearing violated the pharmacy\u2019s policy, and instead of removing his mask, Mr. Calzada left for the day.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 A few days later, when Mr. Calzada returned to work, his supervisors informed him that the pharmacy\u2019s polices were updated and he was now permitted to wear a mask and gloves at work.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 However, during the meeting, Mr. Calzada was repeatedly belittled by the head pharmacist and at one point called a \u201cdisrespectful stupid little kid.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Mr. Calzada quit the same day. Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Mr. Calzada subsequently filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The EEOC brought suit against U.S. Drug Mart on his behalf, alleging the Texas pharmacy created a hostile work environment and constructively discharged Calzada based on the conduct of the store manager and head pharmacist.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 The district court granted<\/a> summary judgment in favor of U.S. Drug Mart in October of 2022. It determined that \u201can isolated instance of verbal harassment is generally not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim.\u201d EEOC v. United States Drug Mart, Inc<\/i>., No. EP-21-CV-00232, 2022 WL 18539781, at *8 (W.D.Tex. 2022). The EEOC appealed on January 31, 2023.<\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit\u2019s Ruling<\/b><\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit, in affirming the district court\u2019s summary judgment decision, held that the EEOC was unable to establish a prima facie<\/i> case for a hostile work environment claim because it was unable to prove that the head pharmacist\u2019s harsh words were \u201csufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim\u2019s employment.\u201d \u00a0EEOC, <\/i>2024 WL 64766, at *2.\u00a0 The Fifth Circuit observed that although the head pharmacist\u2019s behavior was \u201ccertainly brusque,\u201d it fell well short of the Fifth Circuit\u2019s fairly high standard for \u201csevere\u201d conduct. \u00a0Id<\/i>. \u00a0The Fifth Circuit noted that the EEOC\u2019s constructive discharge claim failed for the same reason, because proving constructive discharge required an even \u201cgreater degree of harassment than that required by a hostile work environment claim.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. \u00a0Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/b><\/p>\n

The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a variety of novel legal theories and questions of first impression. One thing that remains the same, however, is the high evidentiary standard that plaintiffs need to satisfy to prove their hostile work environment claims, specifically with respect to the element of \u201csevere and pervasive\u201d conduct.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Emilee N. Crowther, and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 In EEOC v. U.S. Drug Mart, Inc., No. 23-50075, 2024 WL 64766, at *1 (5th Cir. Jan 5, 2024), the Fifth Circuit refused to resurrect an EEOC lawsuit alleging that a Texas pharmacy created a hostile work environment under the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Refuses To Revive EEOC COVID-Era Mask Bias Suit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,105],"class_list":["post-1049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":105,"user_id":677,"is_guest":0,"slug":"cpalacios","display_name":"Christian Palacios","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/12\/PalaciosChristian-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1049\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1049"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}