Abstract
This paper has analyzed the O’Bannon v. Friedman’s and Nyfield v. Virgin Islands Corp cases with the view to gaining a deeper understanding of important concepts associated with workplace discrimination. The O’Bannon v. Friedman’s case has not only demonstrated how employees can become the recipients of workplace discrimination due to their racial orientation and color, but also cultivated a deeper understanding of the negative psychological, physiological and work-related outcomes of workplace discrimination. Additionally, the case has illuminated the functions of a forensic psychologist in undertaking assessments that could be used in a court of law to determine cases of workplace discrimination. The Nyfield v. Virgin Islands case, on the other hand, has been effective in providing important information on the operations of Rule 35 mental examination and the main considerations that must be met for the rule to be admissible in a court of law.
Introduction
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, the number of Title VII claims of workplace discrimination has increased considerably in the American legal system as employees seek legal redress for various allegations of discrimination based on variables such as biological sex, racial or ethnic orientation, country of origin, sexual orientation, and disability (Long, Rouse, Nelsen, & Butcher, 2004). In most of these lawsuits, forensic psychologists are often called upon to evaluate claims that the circumstances of the workplace setting, the conduct of employees or management, or the lack of satisfactory response from management led to actual emotional, mental or psychological harm on the part of the litigant (Goodman-Delahunty & Foote, 2011). The present paper analyzes two court cases to demonstrate important concepts associated with workplace discrimination.
Analysis of Cases
In O’Bannon v. Friedman’s case (2003), the federal district court in Maryland found the defendant’s employment rules discriminatory to three African American plaintiffs due to refusal to hire the plaintiffs for store manager and store associate jobs, denial of promotions to senior management roles, and unequal compensation policies that saw African American employees paid less than similarly qualified white employees in the same job (Goodman-Delahunty & Foote, 2011). The plaintiffs argued that the employment discrimination was based on racial considerations and that it led to adverse psychological, physiological and work-related outcomes. Here, it is important to note that the plaintiffs were the recipients of workplace discrimination based on their racial orientation (African Americans) and color (being black) (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2009).
In 2004, the parties to this case reached an agreement that the defendant (O’Bannon) was to provide a full and fair settlement to the plantiffs (comprehensive injunctive relief and significant monetary relief) to compensate them for the damages caused by the unfair employment discrimination practices. In this case, the main functions of the forensic psychologist included assessing whether the said employment discrimination occurred, why it occurred, and how it affected the litigants in the discharge of their duties or responsibilities (Goodman-Delahunty & Foote, 2011). The jury in this case relied on a psychological assessment report on feigning and malingering to ensure that the litigants were not inventing or exaggerating the psychological problems to benefit unfairly from the decisions of the court.
It is evident from the case that the issues raised by the litigants led to adverse psychological, physiological, and work-related outcomes. Available literate demonstrates that unfavorable psychological outcomes resulting from workplace discrimination may include anxiety, depression, distress, fear, hostility, loss of control, life-satisfaction decrease, and poor overall wellbeing (Weiner & Goldstein, 2013). Adverse physiological harm outcomes may include alcohol consumption increase, binge eating, blood pressure change, chronic fatigue, crying spells and headaches, while work-related harm may be assessed using factors such as decreased productivity, lower job satisfaction, organizational withdrawal, diminished job performance, and decreased commitment to the organization (Goodman-Delahunty & Foote, 2011). Although these issues were proved before the court, leading to the negotiated settlement, the defendant (O’Bannon) filed for bankruptcy to avoid settling the reward.
In Nyfield v. Virgin Islands Corp case (2001 WL 378858), the court adjudicated on a proposal made by the defendant (Virgin Islands) that the Rule 35 assessment should include “all physical and mental injuries alleged by the plaintiff, as well as pre-existing physical or mental conditions” (McDonald, 2007, p. 6). It is important to note that, in most employment discrimination cases, a competent court of law has the power to “order the plaintiff to undergo a Rule 35 mental examination where the plaintiff seeks to recover damages for mental or emotional injuries” (McDonald, 2007, p. 3). Most court jurisdictions require psychological assessors to distinguish “garden variety” emotional distress claims (e.g., embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish) from real psychological harm such as anxiety, depression, distress, fear, hostility, loss of control, and poor overall wellbeing (Weiner & Goldstein, 2013). This means that the court is at liberty to refuse a defendant’s request for a Rule 35 mental assessment when it is evident that the litigant describes his or her psychological harm from employment discrimination in terms of “embarrassment”, “humiliation”, and other associated constructs (McDonald, 2007).
In the Nyfield v. Virgin Islands case, the court refused to comply with the defendant’s proposal by arguing that it was not legally proper to include an assessment of pre-existing physical or mental conditions as such an orientation would broaden the scope of the Rule 35 examination. Specifically, the court ruled that the mental assessment should proceed, but constrained the “scope to procedures and testing relevant to plaintiff’s assertion that his damages include mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life including future damage there from” (McDonald, 2007, p. 3).
This ruling is consistent with the assertions made by Long et al. (2004) that assessments for psychological damages arising from workplace discrimination should evaluate the present and future harm that the employee will experience as a direct result of the actions of the organization or its management. A further analysis of the ruling demonstrates that pre-existing physical or mental conditions should not be considered when ordering the litigant to undergo a Rule 35 mental examination with the view to determining whether the identified psychological damages are as a result of discriminatory treatment in work-related contexts. Finally, the case advances the understanding of the psychological variables that may be considered in a court of law as resulting from workplace discrimination and those that constitute “garden variety” claims. This distinction is very important in ensuring that litigants do not take advantage of the court process to get compensation for issues that cannot be associated with workplace discrimination.
Conclusion
This paper has analyzed two court cases to develop an adequate understanding of several issues and concepts associated with employment discrimination. Specifically, the paper has elaborated on the recipients of workplace discrimination as well as the negative effects associated with workplace discrimination. Lastly, the analysis has been effective in providing important information on the operations of Rule 35 mental examination and the main considerations that must be met for the rule to be effective.
References
Fulero, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (2009). Forensic psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Foote, W.E. (2011). Evaluation for workplace discrimination and harassment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Long, B., Rouse, S.V., Nelsen, R.O., & Butcher, J.N. (2004). The MMPI-2 in sexual harassment and discrimination litigants. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 643-657. Web.
McDonald, J.J. (2007). Assessing emotional distress damages: Torture or fair pray? Web.
Weiner, I.B., & Goldstein, A.M. (2013). Handbook of psychology volume II: Forensic psychology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.