Understanding Associational Discrimination in Employment Law and Identifying Potential Cases – Minnesota and Federal Laws

Federal and state laws prohibit “associational discrimination” and “disability discrimination” in employment. What this means is no employer may retaliate against you on the basis of your relationship with a person based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or other protected classification. This article will explain the basics of this infrequently litigated legal claim and help you to identify potential cases in your workplace.

What is Associational Discrimination?

Associational discrimination is a form of employment discrimination that occurs when an employer treats an employee unfavorably because of their association with a person who has a disability or is a member of a protected class. This type of discrimination is explicitly prohibited under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Associational discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as termination, demotion, refusal to hire, transfer to a less desirable position or location, and even informing another employer about the employee’s protected association. Understanding this concept is crucial for recognizing and addressing unfair treatment in the workplace.

What does the Americans with Disabilities Act say about associational discrimination?

The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) prohibits reprisal against an employee because the person is “associated with a disabled person or group of persons who are disabled or who are of different race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.” Minn. Stat. § 363A.15. This includes associations with a family member, friend, or any other individual with a disability. Reprisal for this purpose includes not just the usual “adverse employment” actions such as termination, demotion, refusal to hire, transfer to a less desirable position or location, but also the act of informing another employer of the employee’s legally protected association.

Federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, contain similar protections. Although Title VII does not have specific language concerning associational discrimination as is found in the MHRA, federal courts have interpreted it to be a type of unlawful reprisal, including most recently in July 2021 in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals case Kengerski v. Harper (2021). Her claim that the defendant failed to accommodate her scheduling requests to allow for care of her son was insufficient as a matter of law, because the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require “reasonable accommodation” to care for others.

Employment Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations

Employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on their association with a person who has a disability. This includes denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of someone they are associated with. However, it’s important to note that while employers must provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, they are not required to extend these accommodations to employees who associate with people with disabilities. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) emphasizes that the purpose of the associational discrimination provision is to prevent employers from making adverse decisions based on unfounded stereotypes and assumptions about individuals who associate with people who have disabilities. This ensures that employees are judged solely on their own merits and not penalized for their relationships.

What does associational discrimination look like for not just family members?

Only a handful of court decisions have addressed claims of associational discrimination in Minnesota. One Federal Court case, Lopez v. Construction and Bldg. Materials, Drivers, Helpers and Inside Employees Union (D. Minn. 2006) involved a longtime union business agent and officer of mixed Hispanic and Anglo heritage, Plaintiff Daniel Lopez, who in the course of his job duties, earned a reputation for advocating on behalf of women and African American employees. He alleged, among other things, that a union leader rebuked him as follows: “Don’t keep pissing everyone off at the Main Plant anymore by saving those worthless black drivers.”

Following a particularly contentious union election, Lopez was fired for alleged “political disloyalty.” Lopez sued thereafter claiming discrimination on the basis of race and associational discrimination. In another case, an employee alleged discrimination due to her relationship with a sick or disabled spouse. Following discovery, the Defendant Union moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case. The Court denied the Union’s motion, allowing the case to proceed to trial. Noting a lack of guidance from the Minnesota courts, the Court looked to analogous cases from courts in other federal circuits and held that retaliation for advocating on behalf of co-workers who are members of a protected class constitutes associational discrimination—even if doing so is part of your job duties. For summary judgment purposes, Lopez satisfied the difficult causation element—proving that his protected activity was a motivating factor his firing—based on the closeness in time between announcing his support for minorities at a meeting and his firing, along with conflicting reasons given by the employer for the firing.

On the other hand, the Court in Kennedy v. Heritage of Edina, Inc. (D. Minn. 2014) dismissed the claims of a housekeeper employed by a home healthcare company who asserted, among other claims, that she was terminated because her son suffers from sickle cell anemia. This includes aspects such as job training, which should remain equitable regardless of an employee’s associations. In this case, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to provide evidence linking her son’s condition with the termination. Her claim that the defendant failed to accommodate her scheduling requests to allow for care of her son was insufficient as a matter of law, because the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require “reasonable accommodations” to care for others. Rather the requested accommodations must be directed to the employee’s own disabilities, so as to facilitate his/her return to work.

Seeking Legal Support for Associational Discrimination Claims

If you believe you have suffered employment discrimination based on your association with a person who has a disability, it is crucial to seek legal support from an experienced employment lawyer. An employment lawyer can help you understand your rights and options under the law and guide you through the process of filing a claim. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides robust protections for individuals who suffer employment discrimination because of a disability, including discrimination based on a friend or loved one’s disability. Don’t hesitate to contact an employment lawyer to discuss your employment-related concerns and determine the best course of action for your case. Legal expertise can be invaluable in navigating the complexities of employment law and ensuring that your rights are protected.

Summary

“Association” for purposes of associational discrimination can mean many things, and it includes not just family members but also friends, roommates, and other personal connections. It can be friendship/dating, family relationship or even being an advocate for co-workers. The challenge in all these cases is linking the association to an adverse employment action. Smoking gun evidence rarely exists. Most supervisors would not typically expose themselves to liability by saying what they think: “I’ve learned that you’re dating someone who is ******_, so unfortunately we’ll need to let you go.” Therefore, it’s important to carefully document troubling things that happen in the workplace. If you have any other employment related concerns, it is advisable to seek legal counsel to understand your rights and options.

Contact Our Minnesota Employment Lawyer

If you feel you have been the target for discrimination on the basis of your association with someone of a protected class, please contact the experience employment lawyers at Wanta Thome for a free initial consultation.