Appeals court renders verdict in discrimination case with less-than-flattering take on MC Human Rights Commission

NIT – An Iowa appeals court rendered a decision this week in a discrimination case involving a North Iowa woman and her employer, and had some less-than-flattering remarks about a decision rendered several years ago by the Mason City Human Rights Commission.

The Iowa appeals court decision, affirmed a district court decision which overturned a finding by the Mason City Human Rights Commission.

Lori Johnson had appealed the district court’s ruling, which held the Mason City Human Rights Commission’s decision that Johnson was discriminated against, retaliated against, and constructively discharged by her employer, Federal Express (“FedEx”), was not supported by substantial evidence. Johnson contended in her appeal that the court erred (1) in finding there was not substantial evidence FedEx discriminated against her based on her sex, (2) in finding there was not substantial evidence of retaliation, and (3) in finding there was not substantial evidence of constructive discharge.

According to the facts of the case, on July 20, 2007, Johnson filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission, alleging FedEx discriminated against her on the basis of her sex and disability and retaliated against her for filing a prior complaint with the Commission, all in violation of the Mason City Human Rights Code. The unlawful conduct set forth in the complaint was that FedEx allegedly repeatedly failed to grant her request for an accommodation for her disability. On October 23, 2007, Johnson filed a second charge of discrimination with the Commission, alleging that FedEx constructively discharged her from her employment in violation of the Mason City Human Rights Code. The unlawful conduct alleged in the complaint was that FedEx’s repeated failure to grant her request for an accommodation for her disability forced her to quit her employment.

In August 2006, Johnson was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Although it is not disputed that she was fully able to perform the functions of the swing driver position without accommodation, she sought a set route position because she and her physician thought it would be better for her; FedEx denied Johnson the change in her employment, leading to the charges at the MC Human Rights agency, which found discrimination.

That decision was reversed in district court, where an administrative law judge – after hearing the testimony of numerous witnesses and reviewing the numerous exhibits received into evidence – dismissed Johnson’s complaint. The judge had concluded that FedEx articulated legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, Johnson was precluded from applying for a position or bidding on a route because Johnson had an active warning letter in her file. On the one instance a route became available for bid to those with an active warning letter or letters, Johnson declined to bid on the position and instead took medical leave.

Johnson appealed.

In it’s decision, the appeals court had strong words for the findings of the Mason City Human Rights Commission.

“The Commission’s final decision and order differed greatly from [the administrative law judge’s] proposed decision. The Commission found FedEx discriminated against Johnson on the basis of her sex, retaliated against her for filing a prior complaint, and constructively discharged Johnson. On judicial review, the district court reversed the Commission, determining the Commission’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence; its application of the law to the facts was irrational, illogical, and wholly unjustifiable; and Johnson failed to prove discrimination, retaliation, or constructive discharge. This is a case in which there is no evidence supporting the Commission’s findings. Quite simply, the Commission’s decision is rife with factual error, legal error, and irrational analysis. In contrast, the district court’s decision was thorough, well-researched, and well-reasoned. The district court had reasoned, there was no evidence of an adverse employment action. The position and/or routes that Johnson sought were materially indistinguishable from the position she held. Indeed, the position she held, while having the same job functions, actually paid more than the positions she sought. Second, the district court concluded, FedEx articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its conduct. The Commission’s conclusion that FedEx’s employment policies were modifiable at will was not supported by substantial evidence. The Commission’s conclusion that FedEx’s decision not to allow Johnson to change positions or obtain a route outside the normal processes is evidence of discrimination and/or retaliation is puzzling at best.”