{"id":806,"date":"2023-09-11T10:31:24","date_gmt":"2023-09-11T14:31:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=806"},"modified":"2023-09-11T10:31:24","modified_gmt":"2023-09-11T14:31:24","slug":"drug-screening-company-obtains-hairy-win-in-disparate-impact-race-bias-class-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/09\/11\/drug-screening-company-obtains-hairy-win-in-disparate-impact-race-bias-class-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Drug Screening Company Obtains Hairy Win In Disparate Impact Race Bias Class Action"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>In Wilson v. Timec, No. 2:23-CV-00172, 2023 WL 5753617 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted<\/a> Defendants\u2019 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a race discrimination class action. The Court held that Plaintiffs Marvonte Wilson and Domonique Daniels (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) failed plausibly to allege in their complaint that Defendants\u2019 hair drug testing employment practice had a disparate impact or disparate treatment on individuals with melanin-rich hair under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (\u201cTitle VII\u201d) or under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (\u201cFEHA\u201d).\u00a0 \u00a0This case serves as an important reminder to companies that utilize employment-related drug testing to stay vigilant as to the potential impact of their chosen drug testing protocols on certain populations and communities.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs, who both have melanin-rich hair, filed a complaint alleging that Defendants failed to provide them work assignments or opportunities on the basis of allegedly false positive hair drug tests. \u00a0Id<\/em>. at 1.\u00a0 Plaintiffs asserted that hair drug testing is less effective on melanin-rich hair, and persons of color who have melanin-rich hair are consequently at a higher risk of false positive test results than individuals with lighter-colored hair.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 2.\u00a0 Plaintiffs filed a class action and sued on behalf of themselves and other similarly-situated workers alleging that the drug testing had a disparate impact on individuals with melanin-rich hair under Title VII and under the FEHA and that Defendants subjected them to disparate treatment.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 1.\u00a0 In response, Defendant DISA (later joined by all other Defendants) filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (\u201cDefendants\u2019 Motion\u201d).\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court initially noted that Title VII prohibits employers from \u201cdiscriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual\u2019s race . . . or national origin.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 2 (quoting 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a)(1)).\u00a0 Similarly, the FEHA prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual \u201c\u2018in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment\u2019 on, inter alia, race, color, or national origin.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. (quoting Cal. Gov\u2019t Code \u00a7 12940(a)).\u00a0 Due to the similar language between Title VII and FEHA, the Court opined that that \u201cTitle VII framework is applied to claims brought under the FEHA.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. (quoting Pinder v. Emp. Dev. Dep\u2019t<\/em>., 227 F. Supp. 3d 1123, 1136 (E.D. Cal. 2017)).<\/p>\n

The Court reasoned that a disparate impact claim is proper when plaintiffs \u201cplausibly allege that an employment disparity exists with respect to the protected group.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. (citing Liu v. Uber Techs. Inc.<\/em>, 551 F. Supp. 3d 988, 990 (N.D. Cal. 2021)).\u00a0 The Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 Title VII and FEHA disparate impact claims because it found that their complaint lacked substantive allegations sufficient to \u201cestablish a connection between race and the challenged\u201d hair drug testing.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 3.\u00a0 Namely, the Court held that, even though Plaintiffs raised allegations in their response to Defendants\u2019 Motion \u201cconcerning the difference in the melanin content of dark hair in people of different races, the disparity in drug test outcomes between black and white employees, the difference in how drugs interact with the hair of black and white individuals, and the increased risk of false positive test results due to hair products used by black individuals,\u201d \u201c[n]one<\/u> of th[o]se allegations appear[ed] in the [Plaintiffs\u2019] complaint.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 2.<\/p>\n

The Court also opined that a claim of disparate treatment is proper \u201cwhere an employer has treated a particular person less favorably than others because of a protected trait.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 3.\u00a0 That said, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs\u2019 Title VII and FEHA disparate treatment claims because Plaintiffs failed plausibly to allege that, in adopting their facially neutral drug-testing policies, Defendants \u201chad discriminatory intent.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

For these reasons, the Court concluded that Defendants\u2019 Motion should be granted.\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 3.\u00a0 It provided Plaintiffs 20 days, or until September 26, 2023, to file an amended complaint.\u00a0 Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Implications for Employers<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s ruling is an important win for companies facing disparate impact class actions in that it illustrates the high bar plaintiffs must meet to clear the pleading phase.\u00a0 In particular, the Court\u2019s decision shows that plaintiffs must allege facts showing an actual connection between the challenged practice and the protected category at issue.\u00a0 That said, companies that utilize employment-related drug testing should be proactive and stay apprised of research surrounding their chosen drug tests and their potentially disparate impact on various communities.\u00a0 Additionally, companies should evaluate their drug testing policies and practices to ensure they remain free of discriminatory intent and potential bias as to any particular community.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Emilee N. Crowther Duane Morris Takeaways: In Wilson v. Timec, No. 2:23-CV-00172, 2023 WL 5753617 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2023), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendants\u2019 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Drug Screening Company Obtains Hairy Win In Disparate Impact Race Bias Class Action”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806","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\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=806"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}