Once children are all grown up, it can be difficult for them to find time to do things together with their parents. Often, work and family obligations keep them apart for weeks or months at a time. However, in today’s update, we discuss a father and son duo who were not only able to work together as security counselors for the Minnesota Department of Human Services (“DHS”), but were able to sue their employer, together, when they were sent to training with which they disagreed.
In Norgren v. Minnesota Department of Human Services, the Norgrens, who identified as Christians, disagreed with the two trainings they were required to attend as employees of DHS. The Norgrens alleged that they opposed the first training, on racism, as violative of the traditional view of equality, and they opposed the second training, on gender identity, as contrary to their religious beliefs. The elder Norgren expressed his opposition to gender identity training and sought a religious exemption from the training. He was directed to notify DHS officials about his request. A month later, his request for an exemption was denied. He then filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
The younger Norgren expressed his opposition to both trainings to his supervisor and asked for an exemption from both trainings. His requests were also denied. Following the denial, his request for a day off was denied. Several months later, Norgren applied for a supervisory position, for which he did not meet minimum qualifications. During the pendency of his application, he filed a charge with the EEOC based on his denied request for a day off. Three weeks later, he was informed he was ineligible to interview for the supervisory position. The EEOC issued the Norgrens right to sue letters for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, and claims of retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights. Their claims were dismissed by the District Court, but they appealed.
As a reminder, motions to dismiss have a very low evidentiary standard where the allegations of the non-moving party are assumed to be true. In support of its motion, DHS asserted that there was no causal connection between the younger Norgren’s rejection for an interview and his filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. It based this argument on the fact that he was not qualified for the position, based on the established requirements for the position. The court found that it did not matter if he was qualified or not, as he alleged he’d been determined qualified for similar positions in the past. That alone was sufficient to “raise a plausible inference of discrimination” at the complaint stage.
DHS also argued that the decisionmaker for the promotion had no notice that the younger Norgren had filed a complaint with the EEOC. Because the EEOC is required to serve notice within 10 days a charge being filed, the court was required to find that it was arguable that the hiring authority knew of the charge at the time he was rejected. As such, his retaliation and discrimination claims were allowed to proceed.
The elder Norgren’s charge of discrimination was not as strong, as he was not able to plead any actual adverse action by the employer. Prior to DHS’s decision to deny his request for an exemption from training, he announced his retirement from his position. He was unable to allege any conduct from the agency amounted to a feeling of dissimilar treatment, which is not enough to amount to adverse action, even at the pleading stage.
On the Norgrens’ First Amendment “Compelled Speech” claims, the court noted that it is a right of citizens to be free from compelled speech under the U.S. Constitution. However, in order to pursue a compelled speech claim, plaintiffs must allege they were coerced into accepting a particular message. As much as they disagreed with the message of the trainings they were required to attend, they could only plead that they were required to attend the trainings, and not “change [their] minds for life.”
With that, the claims of First Amendment violations were dismissed, but the younger Norgren was able to proceed with his (somewhat flimsy) discrimination claims past the pleading stage. That being said, the employer will not have to move to the summary judgment stage, which becomes significantly more expensive than a motion to dismiss. It is important in these situations to ensure that all of your documentation is in order well before litigation even begins. If you, or your organization, need assistance in dealing with potential employee discrimination claims, contact Wiley Reber Law, for legal advice that works.