By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In McWilliams v. Cmty. Educ. Ctrs., Inc., an African American correctional officer was terminated for violating a fraternization policy after he helped an inmate deposit money into his prison account. The officer alleged the termination was racially discriminatory and that the prison had allowed a hostile work environment. The U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania found that the officer had established a disparate treatment claim by alleging his punishment was not comparable to white officers who had broken the same rule and the office had established a hostile work environment claim by alleging black officers were subjected to pictures of nooses.
Victor McWilliams, an African American man, was employed as a corrections officer with Delaware County Prison from January 1, 2009, until his termination. The incident giving rise to the termination occurred in December 2012, when McWilliams came in contact with an inmate who asked McWilliams why the inmate’s family were unable to deposit money into his prison account. McWilliams offered to help the inmate solve the problem and proceeded to call the inmate’s daughter and gave her the inmate’s bank number, routing number, and the dollar amount requested. The next day, McWilliams informed the inmate that this conversation occurred and later in the day the inmate confirmed that money had in fact been deposited into his account.
On January 4, 2014, the inmate was filling out an inmate interview sheet and listed the December 2012 incident. The prison began to investigate the incident and McWilliams admitted the conduct had occurred. On January 30, 2013, McWilliams was terminated from the prison for obtaining an inmate’s banking information constituting a “fraternization” violation of the CBA and the County policies. After the termination, McWilliams filed a claim stating that his termination was the result of race discrimination and that the prison was a hostile work environment under Title VII.
The prison argued that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for maintaining the policy and that it had acted permissibly under the terms of the CBA. McWilliams argued that the court should not limit their analysis solely on the fact that he violated the fraternization policy. Instead, McWilliams argued the court must consider the disparate manner in which the prison disciplined African American COs for a wide variety of perceived violations. McWilliams cited a variety of issues which do not challenge the legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for terminating his employment for fraternization but raises questions of different discipline standards for African American officers.
The Court agreed with McWilliams and found that he could survive the prison’s motion for summary judgment because the alleged disparate punishment, and the Prison’s failure to rebut it, created a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the Court found that McWilliams could also proceed with his hostile work environment claim after alleging multiple incidents of racial discrimination and specific allegations of multiple African American’s finding pictures of themselves hung on nooses.
In summary, the Court found that McWilliams could proceed with both his racial discrimination even though the Prison had terminated him under a reasonable rule for a legitimate business reason because there was a question of whether or not the punishment for these violations was handed out in a discriminatory manner.
The underlying issue here is proportionality within the context of a race discrimination case. The court was clearly persuaded by facts showing that African-American corrections officers were subject to different discipline standards than white corrections officers.
For example, there were repeated instances of wrongful conduct by Caucasion corrections officers, including theft, that were either not investigated or did not lead to discipline. These facts ultimately led to the court upholding McWilliams’ race discrimination claim.
Proportionality also comes up frequently in the context of disciplinary arbitrations. Most labor contracts require that discipline only be for “just cause.” “Just cause” requires that the employer discipline employees in the same or similar manner for the same or similar offense. Union representatives will sometimes have facts to show one employee was either not disciplined or disciplined lightly when another employee was seriously disciplined, maybe even terminated, for the same or similar offense. This may constitute a violation of just cause and may justify overturning discipline.
At the end of the day, when taking disciplinary action against an employee, employers need to be aware and cautious about how they have responded in the past to similar or analogous incidents to make sure that they respond consistently and proportionally across the board.
