People at work often discuss their personal lives or things that are going on in the world. You may mention that you’re not Indian, your wife is. You may state you think it’s wrong to discriminate against African Americans. You may talk about your husband’s treatment for diabetes. If management learns about this and takes an adverse employment action against you because of your associations or ideas, sympathy for or relationship with someone who is different or unwell, it may violate state and/or federal law.

State and federal laws make employment discrimination illegal based on your association with a person of color, nationality, or based on their illness. The law seeks to protect people who are victims of discrimination not because of their own characteristics, but rather those of others with whom the employee is in relation. It’s a broad area of legal protection, depending on the facts and law at issue.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law that provides broad protections to people with disabilities, also covers those not disabled but who are associated with someone else who’s disabled. The statute explicitly states that illegal discrimination includes “…excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.”

The federal agency enforcing the employment provisions of the ADA, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), states there need not be a family relationship for this part of the law to apply. The issue is whether the employer’s discriminatory acts were motivated by the employee’s relationship or association with a person who has a disability.

The EEOC also states that under the main federal law covering employment discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, equal employment opportunities can’t be denied because of:

• Being married to or associated with someone of another race
• Membership in or association with ethnic-based groups
• Attendance or participation in schools or places of worship connected to a minority group or other cultural practices or characteristics connected to a race or ethnicity, such as how one dresses or speaks – as long as the practice or characteristic doesn’t interfere with the employee’s ability to perform their regular job duties

What does this mean in practice? In the case of Barrett v. Whirlpool Corporation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the appeal of a dismissal of a lawsuit at the trial level. Three Caucasian women claimed harassment because of their friendships with and support for African American co-workers. The upper court ruled the claims of two plaintiffs should be dismissed but those of the third should be tried.

The court stated that no particular degree of association is required to be protected by Title VII. The plaintiff only needs to establish:

• He or she suffered discrimination at work
• Because they are associated with members of a protected class (gender race, color, ethnicity, disability, age)

The court held that the acts and words of harassment specifically targeting workers who associated with and advocated for African Americans resulted in a valid association harassment claim. The record showed only a few of the alleged harassing comments or actions were directed toward the two plaintiffs whose appeal failed. Most of the harassment claimed by these plaintiffs wasn’t directed at them but at African American employees.

The third plaintiff showed she was subjected to a regular stream of offensive comments about her relationship with an African American co-worker. She alleged her work relationships prevented her from getting promotions.

Unlike these federal laws, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination does not have explicit language barring association discrimination. However, those protections are considered part of the law as it’s interpreted by state courts. When someone associated with a person of a protected class suffers discrimination, it’s seen as the functional equivalent of being a member of the group.

This office litigated a federal case on behalf of a male worker whose daughter had a significant medical condition requiring expensive medication.  The employer was self-insured for its employee medical plan.  The company went to great lengths to sever the daughter from its plan, and ultimately fired the employee, who was one of its top producers.  Every year the company President gave the employee a letter of merit for his incredible work.  Then he was suddenly fired without explanation.  We knew the explanation:  the company wanted the employee off payroll due to the high cost of his daughter’s illness. This is a classic associational discrimination case. We litigated that case for more than two years before we were able to obtain a settlement for our client. Our client went to work for another company that covered his daughter’s medical costs, and eventually she became covered by Medicare.  We considered that outcome highly successful.  More importantly, so did our client.

If you believe your employer has discriminated against you because of your association with another person or group, call the employment law attorneys at the Kingston Law Group, at 609-683-7400, or contact us online. We will schedule you for a reduced fee initial consultation at our offices in Kingston.  We are compassionate counsel and tough advocates.  We will listen to your facts, explain the law, and help you find your way to economic and social justice.  Call today. You will be glad you did.