District of Columbia Court Applies Expansive D.C. Anti-Discrimination Law to Out-of-State Applicants and Employees
Employers with managers based in the U.S. capital should take heed of a recent decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. In Monteilh v. AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 107 FEP Cases 561 (D.C. 2009), the court significantly expanded the reach of the anti-discrimination provisions of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) by holding that employees or applicants located outside of Washington, D.C. may bring claims for discrimination under the DCHRA so long as the discrimination decision was made in the District of Columbia (D.C.).
In Monteilh, the plaintiff initially worked in California for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a labor union headquartered in D.C. During his 19 years as a union organizer with AFSCME, Monteilh neither worked in nor applied for a position in D.C. In 2005, Monteilh brought suit in D.C. superior court alleging, among other things, that his employer's failure to promote him and decision to transfer him to another state were discriminatory actions in violation of the DCHRA. The lower court dismissed the charges on the grounds that, even though AFSCME personnel in D.C. either approved or endorsed some of the alleged adverse employment decisions, the decisions themselves did not affect a position or application for a position in D.C. The appellate court disagreed with this analysis, finding that the DCHRA applies if the alleged discriminatory decision is made--or the decision's effect is felt--in D.C.
This decision has significant implications for employers with managerial staff located in the U.S. capital. First, any employment decision merely approved by a D.C. manager could potentially subject the employer to a DCHRA claim. Second, the DCHRA itself is more expansive than federal anti-discrimination legislation, covering 18 protected categories. Third, bringing and prevailing on a claim under the DCHRA carries a relatively low burden for a plaintiff, as the claimant can file a lawsuit in court without first filing a claim with the local anti-discrimination agency, and need only prove that discrimination was a motivating--not the sole--cause of the adverse employment decision. Finally, managers may be held personally liable under the DCHRA, and there is no cap on damages.
For more information on this decision and its implications, see Littler's ASAP: Court of Appeals Extends Reach of D.C. Anti-Discrimination Law to Applicants and Employees Outside of D.C.(pdf) written by Alison N. Davis and Hannah R. Farber.
Trackbacks (0)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://www.globalemploymentlaw.com/mtc/mt-tb.cgi/474
http://www.globalemploymentlaw.com/mtc/mt-tb.cgi/474
Comments (0)
Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.