For better or worse, when your parents disapprove of the person you’ve chosen to marry, there’s not much recourse in the law (although some might call your parents’ attitude a form of intentional infliction of emotional distress). But according to one New York appellate court, the law does protect employees when their employer disapproves of their spouse. What’s more, it doesn’t even matter whether the employee is actually married as long as the employer believes that to be the case, nor does it matter that the employer is not actually biased against married couples. This expansive view of marital status discrimination could potentially have a significant impact on employer decision-making when it comes to issues involving employees’ spouses, certainly within New York City and potentially elsewhere if other courts adopt this approach.
In Morse v. Fidessa Corp., et al., 2018 NY Slip Op 05975 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept, Sept. 6, 2018) the plaintiff, Christopher Morse, worked for the defendant Fidessa Corp., a financial services firm. According to the allegations in the complaint, Morse had been married to a co-worker, Lael Wakefield, with whom Morse had two children. Morse and Wakefield subsequently divorced but continued to live together, and the employer Fidessa apparently believed they were still married. Morse allegedly was suspended and then fired by Fidessa because Wakefield had left Fidessa to work for another financial services firm. Furthermore, Morse alleged that he was told that he was fired because of this perceived marital relationship, and that, if he divorced Wakefield, he would be reconsidered for re-employment (again, the employer erroneously believed Morse and Wakefield were still married to each other).
Morse claimed that this was discrimination on the basis of marital status under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). In support of his claim, Morse identified a comparator: an unmarried couple where both partners initially worked for Fidessa, and one left to work for a different financial services firm, but the partner who remained at Fidessa was neither suspended nor fired. Fidessa moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint did not state a claim of marital discrimination under the NYCHRL. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and Fidessa appealed.
In a case of first impression, the Appellate Division, First Department, held that “marital status” under the NYCHRL refers not only to whether an individual is married or not married, but also to whether two individuals are married to each other or not married to each other – i.e., the marital status of two people in relation to each other. Thus, in this case, the allegation that Fidessa took adverse action against Morse based on whether he was married to Wakefield was sufficient to state claim under the NYCHRL. It was irrelevant that Fidessa was not alleged to be biased against married couples generally, or that Fidessa presumably had no bias against Morse being married to someone other than Wakefield. According taking adverse action against an employee based on his/her marriage to a particular person violates the NYCHRL’s prohibition on marital status discrimination. Also, the fact that Morse was not actually married to Wakefield at the time did not matter, because the employer believed they were married and that belief was the basis for its actions.
Thus, under this interpretation of “marital status,” employers must not only be wary of treating married employees differently from employees who are not married. Employers must also refrain from taking action against an employee because that employee is married to a particular person. This concern might arise if an employee with access to sensitive information is married to an employee of a competitor, for example, or if an employee is married to someone who publicly espouses views that the employer finds offensive. In those situations, the employer would be well-advised to consider how its decision might be analyzed under Morse.
For the moment, the geographic impact of this decision is limited to employers covered by the NYCHRL – i.e., those based or operating in New York City. Also, it is notable that the court based its reasoning on the New York City Council’s express command to apply a “uniquely broad” interpretive approach to the NYCHRL, which the legislature intended to be interpreted independently and more liberally than the statute’s federal and state counterparts. But many state and local employment discrimination statutes prohibit marital status discrimination, so it’s fair to assume plaintiffs will be advancing the Morse theory in other jurisdictions, and other courts and legislatures may decide to the expansive interpretation adopted by the Morse court. For the time being, employers should proceed with caution when making employment decisions that are based, even in part, on an employee’s romantic relationships, whether married or otherwise.
Opinions and conclusions in this post are solely those of the author unless otherwise indicated. The information contained in this blog is general in nature and is not offered and cannot be considered as legal advice for any particular situation. The author has provided the links referenced above for information purposes only and by doing so, does not adopt or incorporate the contents. Any federal tax advice provided in this communication is not intended or written by the author to be used, and cannot be used by the recipient, for the purpose of avoiding penalties which may be imposed on the recipient by the IRS. Please contact the author if you would like to receive written advice in a format which complies with IRS rules and may be relied upon to avoid penalties.
[View source.]
