case study draft

92 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

P. Edward French is an assistant

professor in the Department of Political

Science and Public Administration at

Mississippi State University. He is the

coauthor of three books and has published

in numerous academic journals. His

teaching and research interests encompass

local government administration, including

human resource issues, budgeting, public

policy, and selected topics in public

management.

E-mail: [email protected]

Recent Trends in Human Resource Management

Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of local

governments are subject to legal scrutiny; public manag-

ers and offi cials must be keenly aware of the legal rights

and protections that extend to both citizens and employ-

ees of local governments. Th is research evaluates several

areas of concern in the human resource administration of

municipal governments with respect to the management

of public employees within the protections set forth by the

legislative and judicial branches of the federal govern-

ment. Sample cases fi led from 2000 to 2007 against local

governments in Tennessee involving Title VII violations,

retaliation, hostile work environment, Family and Medi-

cal Leave Act violations, and other employee grievances

are detailed. Th e intent of this analysis is to highlight

many of the laws and legal principles that relate to

municipal human resources management and to provide

scholars and practitioners with a brief overview of the li-

abilities that may arise from the employment relationship

between local governments and their employees.

M any of the laws established in this country,

especially those defi ned by the U.S. Con-

stitution, have been used to protect the

rights of our citizenry from infringement by the gov-

ernment; however, there are times when the actions of

federal, state, and local governments and their em-

ployees violate these protections in the provision of

services, the enforcement of the laws, and the manage-

ment of government employees. Yet the legal account-

ability of the government unit and its staff may

depend on the branch, circumstances, and outcome of

the violation. Th e federal government has always

possessed sovereign immunity and cannot be sued

unless it has waived this immunity or has consented

to the suit; the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitu-

tion grants similar sovereign

immunity to the states. 1 Local

governments, however, lack

protection from most court pro-

ceedings because of the U.S.

Supreme Court’s interpretation

that only states and arms of the

state possess immunity from suits

authorized by federal law ( Durchslag 2002 ). Th is

Court’s long-standing precedent has established that

political subdivisions of the states (counties, munici-

palities, school districts, and other local entities) are

not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 2

In 1946, Congress passed the Tort Claims Act, which

allowed citizens to sue their government for injuries

caused by the negligent action of federal employees.

Most state governments followed with similar statutes.

Historically, public employees have been protected as

individuals from constitutional torts by the doctrine

of absolute immunity established under American

common law ( Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2005 ). Th is

doctrine was reexamined by the courts in the 1970s as

a result of the expansion of both individual constitu-

tional rights and civil liability in the American legal

system ( Riccucci 2006 ). While the Civil Rights Act of

1871 (amended and codifi ed in 42 U.S. Code, section

1983) was enacted after the Civil War to protect African

Americans in the South from abuses by the Ku Klux

Klan, litigation under this statute was fairly uncom-

mon until 1961. In Monroe v. Pape (365 U.S. 167

[1961]), the Supreme Court held that local govern-

ments were wholly immune from suit under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, which imposes civil liability on every

“person” who deprives another of his or her federally

protected rights. Th e Court reasoned that Congress

had not intended the word “person” in this section to

apply to municipalities. Th is case was later overturned

in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the State of

New York (436 U.S. 658 [1978]), in which the Court

determined that local governments, municipal corpo-

rations, and school boards were “persons” subject to

liability under § 1983 and were not wholly immune

from § 1983 suits. Th is decision

also stated that local government

offi cials could be sued in their

offi cial capacity as “persons”

under § 1983 in those cases in

which a local government would

be subject to suit in its own

name. Th is section also allows

P. Edward French Mississippi State University

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer:

Lessons to Be Learned from a Review of Lawsuits Filed

against Local Governments

. . . the legal accountability of the government unit and its

staff may depend on the branch, circumstances, and outcome of

the violation.

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 93

individuals to sue state offi cials in state or federal

court for civil rights violations. Th e doctrine of abso-

lute immunity has been replaced by qualifi ed immu-

nity for many employees of the public sector and still

protects government offi cials performing discretionary

functions as long as their actions do not violate clearly

established law. Qualifi ed immunity protects public

offi cials in all levels of government from civil suits

only if they have acted reasonably and in good faith

( Riccucci 2006 ). However, if a state or local govern-

ment offi cial violates a federally protected right of an

individual, such as those defi ned in the First Amend-

ment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the equal

protection clause of the Constitution, civil action for

the deprivation of rights can be initiated and redress

sought through the court system.

Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of

municipalities have attracted legal scrutiny; lawsuits

and judgments against municipalities, municipal

employees, and elected offi cials have increased dra-

matically over the last several years in many functional

areas as a result of the ruling in Monell ( LaBrec and

Foerster 1985 ). Th ird-party liabilities arising from

intentional or unintentional torts, statutory liabilities,

and contractual liabilities present a serious threat.

Also, individuals may fi le a case against the municipal-

ity alleging negligence of its offi cials or employees. In

addition, routine human resource functions such as

recruitment, selection, promotion, performance ap-

praisals, and merit systems have the potential for legal

scrutiny, jury trials, compensa-

tory and punitive damages, and

other burdens imposed under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of

1991, the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA), the

Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor

Standards Act, the Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and

tort theories such as defamation,

misrepresentation, and negligence. While these acts

have been implemented to protect employees from

discrimination and arbitrary management decisions

and focus personnel decisions on job qualifi cations

and job related actions, the resulting increase in civil

rights and employment case law has also made it more

diffi cult for employers to take justifi ed action against

their employees ( Woodard 2005 ).

Th is research evaluates several areas of concern in the

human resource administration of municipal govern-

ments with respect to the management of local gov-

ernment employees within the protections set forth

by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal

government. It is inevitable that most local govern-

ments will experience some form of legal scrutiny

regarding their human resource operations. Decisions

in recruitment and selection, promotion, discipline,

and dismissal often fuel discrimination and other

types of lawsuits by disgruntled applicants, current

employees, and former employees. In many cases, the

nature of the employment relationship and the na-

ture of the employment decision are factors in deter-

mining whether a dispute has actual legal merit. An

overview of selected laws and legal principles that

pertain to the nature of the employment relationship

between municipal governments and their employees

is included in this analysis. In addition, select laws

and legal principles that describe the potential liabil-

ity for employment discrimination are discussed.

Sample cases fi led against local governments in Ten-

nessee involving Title VII violations, retaliation,

hostile work environment, Family and Medical Leave

Act violations, and other employee grievances are

detailed in this study to illustrate the liabilities that

may arise for municipalities in the employment law

arena.

Public Sector Employees and Their Employers Th e employment relationship between public sector

employees and public entities can be very diff erent

from the employment relationship between private

sector employees and private entities. Most individu-

als employed in the private sector are subject to an

at-will employment relationship with their organiza-

tion. Employment at will allows either party to ter-

minate the work relationship at

any time. Th is term is derived

from the court decision in Payne

v. Western and Atlantic RA Com-

pany (82 Tenn. 597 [1884]),

which held that an employer in

the private sector does not have

to provide cause to an employee

who is terminated ( Patton et al.

2002 ). At-will employment

often prevents private sector

employees from claiming a

property right in their positions within the organiza-

tion. Yet the private employer’s discretion regarding

termination is not entirely without limits. Employers

may be found liable by the courts in cases in which

there may be an implied contract or in which the

employer terminates an employee after the individ-

ual complains of harassment or accuses the employer

of some other form of misconduct involving dis-

crimination or retaliation. However, with at-will

employment arrangements, the employee who chal-

lenges an arbitrary discharge shoulders the burden of

proof in the judicial proceeding; even employees

who have legitimate claims may be discouraged from

pursuing legal recourse because of the costs, time

requirements, and justifi cations required ( Gertz

2006 ).

Th e employment relationship between public sector

employees and public entities can be very diff erent from the

employment relationship between private sector

employees and private entities.

94 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

Most public sector employees, however, are privy to a

unique set of legal protections guaranteed by several

federal and state laws. Th e Constitution often pro-

tects the public sector employee’s rights to freedom

of speech and association, privacy, equal protection,

and due process, just as it protects these same rights

of all citizens; the Supreme Court has continued to

rule that public employees have substantive constitu-

tional rights and protections against the actions of

government employers ( Rosenbloom 2007 ). In addi-

tion, a civil service employee is considered to have a

bona fi de property right to his or her position after

he or she has progressed beyond the probationary

term of employment ( Patton et al. 2002 ). Termina-

tion of a civil employee by a federal, state, or local

government requires just cause that in many cases

must be viewed as indisputable if the employee fi les

a wrongful discharge claim against the government

employer. At the present time, only a handful of

states, including Florida, Georgia, and Texas, have

instituted substantial reforms to the civil service

system, such as at-will employment relationships

that aim to increase executive control over public

employees ( Coggburn 2006 ).

Over the past two decades, these at-will employment

initiatives and a wave of other reforms have taken

place, aimed at enhancing the effi ciency of the public

sector and the control that government has over it.

New Public Management and its accompanying

changes have attempted to make public entities func-

tion similar to the private sector. Debureaucratization,

decentralization, and changes in career civil service

have been central themes in this reinventing govern-

ment movement ( Coggburn 2000; Hou et al. 2000;

Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Kellough

and Selden 2003 ). Deregulation of government per-

sonnel administration has been suggested and imple-

mented to alleviate notable concerns in the traditional

civil system, such as undeserved tenure, the rewarding

of seniority rather than merit, and certain diffi culties

associated with employee discipline ( Coggburn 2000 ).

Proponents suggest that at-will employment enhances

governments’ eff orts to make their employees more

accountable for performance and eases legal restraints

on the termination of public employees who are poor

performers or discipline problems. However, concerns

regarding program implementation, job security, work

environment, administrative accountability, and per-

formance of civil service reforms are still being de-

bated as to whether these private sector approaches

off er signifi cant opportunities for government em-

ployers to overcome employee protections under the

civil service system and enhance public sector em-

ployee responsiveness, productivity, and management

( Battaglio and Condrey 2006; Bowman 2002; Bowman

et al. 2003; Condrey 2002; Hays and Sowa 2006;

Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Nigro and

Kellough 2000 ).

Human resource areas of legal concern in the public

sector environment regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are

very similar to those found in the private sector and

often include hiring and promotion processes, disabil-

ity accommodations, and hostile work environment

or retaliation claims. Hiring decisions may subject the

local government employer to allegations of discrimi-

nation based on race, sex, or age. Also, claims of dis-

parate treatment or disparate impact may emerge after

recruitment and selection takes place. Disparate treat-

ment involves intentional discrimination by the em-

ployer that results in improper distinctions among

individuals based on a protected status. Disparate

(adverse) impact is the unintentional discrimination

that arises from employment practices that appear

neutral but adversely aff ect those with protected sta-

tus. Th e overall goal of the local government hiring

process should be to identify and select the applicant

with the most appropriate qualifi cations for the va-

cancy within the municipality. However, just consid-

eration must be given to individuals who fall within

the protected classes established by Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other acts, including the

1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (see table 1 ).

Affi rmative action also requires that federal govern-

ment agencies and contractors not only refrain from

discriminating against minority individuals in their

employment practices but also take steps to actively

recruit minority individuals for employment ( Kellough

2006 ). Both public and private sector employers are

also liable if discrimination occurs in their promotion,

training, pay, benefi ts, discipline, and termination

processes.

Protection from sexual harassment in the workplace

also falls under Title VII. Sexual harassment is defi ned

by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

as “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual

favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sex-

ual nature constitute sexual harassment when this

conduct explicitly or implicitly aff ects an individual’s

employment, unreasonably interferes with an individ-

ual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating,

hostile, or off ensive work environment” ( EEOC

2007 ).

Th is statute applies to employers with 15 or more

employees, including federal, state, and local govern-

ments. Municipalities are expected to encourage and

maintain work environments free of sexual harassment

by implementing no-tolerance policies that are eff ec-

tively communicated to employees, providing sexual

harassment training for employees, establishing a

complaint and grievance process for employees, and

making plans for immediate and appropriate action in

response to employee complaints ( EEOC 2007 ). Both

public and private employers are viewed by the courts

as liable for the sexual harassment actions of their

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 95

employees. In addition to claims

of sexual harassment, allegations of

a hostile work environment may

arise if this conduct interferes with

the employee’s work and creates

an off ensive work environment.

Retaliation may also be charged if

a government employee is treated

diff erently once he or she has

reported an alleged misconduct or

violation of policy by another

government employee or offi cial. Local government

administrators must be very familiar with these legal

rights and protections, or they put themselves at risk

for allegations of discrimination and misconduct in

their human resource policies and actions. Th e follow-

ing section details actual cases that have been fi led

against local governmental entities in the state of

Tennessee by potential, current, and former employees

who have alleged violations of several of these laws

and legal principles.

Case Studies Th e federal court cases for this research study were

found through a search of Public Access to Court

Records (PACER, http://www.pacer.psc.uscourts.

gov ), which listed more than 350 court cases that

were fi led from 2000 to 2007 against public entities

in Tennessee within the U.S. district court system

and the U.S. court of appeals. Th e search was limited

to cases that alleged employment discrimination in

hiring, promotion, and fi ring; violations of the Fair

Labor Standards Act; and violations of the Americans

with Disabilities Act. 3 Detailed information for

several of these cases was found in a search of Lexis-

Nexis Academic. Th is informa-

tion included the prior history

of the case, opinion, and dis-

position of the court. Th e

lawsuits that are included in

this discussion distinctly illus-

trate several of the legal issues

that local government entities

may encounter in their daily

personnel operations. Both

court decisions in favor of the

municipality and against the municipality are

presented.

Discrimination in Hiring Numerous cases found during this time period al-

leged discrimination in the hiring, promotion, and

termination decisions of several municipalities in

Tennessee. One individual brought suit against a

municipality under the Americans with Disabilities

Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973

alleging that the city had refused to hire him as a

police offi cer because he was infected with the human

immunodefi ciency virus (HIV) ( Holiday v. City of

Chattanooga, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit, no. 98-5619, 2000). In this case, the city of

Chattanooga had extended this applicant an employ-

ment off er that was contingent on the passing of a

physical examination required by state statute.

During the physical examination, the potential em-

ployee informed the examining physician that he was

HIV positive. As a result of this disclosure, the

medical examiner concluded that the individual was

not strong enough to withstand the physical require-

ments of the police offi cer position; he advised the

Table 1 Employment Laws and Statues

Laws and Principles Summary

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. Executive Order 10925 (1961) Prohibits federal government and its contractors from employment discrimination because

of race, creed, color, or national origin and requires that these employers take affi rmative action in employment practices.

Executive Order 11246 (1965) Prohibits the federal government from contracting with any public entity or private entity found to have personnel policies that discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

Executive Order 11375 (1967) Prohibits sex as a basis of discrimination for the federal government and its contractors. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967)

Prohibits employment discrimination of individuals age 40 and over.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972)

Prohibits discrimination and extends affi rmative action policies to state and local governments and prohibits discrimination by private sector employers with 15 or more employees.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) Prohibits discrimination in employment based on a known physical or mental impairment against a qualifi ed individual with a disability.

Older Workers Protection Act (1990) Amendment to Age Discrimination in Employment Act that broadened discrimination to include distinctions that may be made in employee benefi ts based on age and prohibited such actions.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 Allows jury trials and compensatory and punitive damages in discrimination cases. Also alters the burden of proof and other technical aspects of some cases.

Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) Individuals who are determined eligible may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid personal leave per year for certain medical reasons. After this absence, the covered employee is entitled to return to the same position or another position that has equal pay, benefi ts, and working conditions.

Retaliation may . . . be charged if a government employee is treated diff erently once he or she has reported an alleged misconduct or violation of

policy by another government employee or offi cial.

96 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

municipality that this applicant did not pass the

medical examination.

Th e plaintiff had previously passed a written examina-

tion and completed a physical agility test for the city a

year prior to being invited to interview for the open

position. After receipt of the medical examination

report, the administrator of the city’s Department of

Safety decided to withdraw the off er, and the city’s

personnel director informed the applicant that the

municipality could not hire him because other em-

ployees and the public would be put at risk. Th e po-

tential employee fi led suit in the district court alleging

that the city had violated the Americans with Disabili-

ties Act and the Rehabilitation Act by basing this

hiring decision on his HIV status.

Th e U.S. district court granted summary judgment to

the city, noting that it had withdrawn its conditional

off er of employment only because the plaintiff could

not pass the physical examination mandated by state

law, not because of any disability this individual pos-

sessed. Th e court stated that the city had a right to

reasonably rely on the physician’s report as substantive

evidence that the applicant could not meet the physi-

cal requirements of the police offi cer position.

Th e U.S. court of appeals, however, reversed this

decision. Th e appellate court ruled that the district

court had erred in accepting the physician’s report as

dispositive evidence of the individual’s alleged inabil-

ity to perform as a police offi cer. Th e plaintiff had

presented suffi cient evidence to the appellate court

that this physician had failed to complete the indi-

vidualized determination required by the ADA and

had determined the applicant to be unqualifi ed be-

cause of his HIV status. Th e ADA mandates an indi-

vidualized inquiry in determining whether an

employee’s disability or other condition disqualifi es

him or her from a certain position. Th is inquiry must

evaluate the individual’s actual medical condition and

the impact, if any, that this condition may have on the

individual’s ability to perform the requirements of the

position. Th e court of appeals also stated that a ratio-

nal trier of fact could conclude that the municipal

offi cial had withdrawn the employment off er because

of the fear that this individual would transmit the

human immunodefi ciency virus while employed by

the city. As a result of the evidence presented in this

case, the U.S. court of appeals reversed the district

court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of the

city.

Another suit involving alleged age and sex discrimina-

tion was brought against the city of Cookeville and its

police chief when the city failed to hire a former em-

ployee who had voluntarily resigned from two posi-

tions previously held with the city ( Andrews v. City of

Cookeville, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-

cuit, no. 01-6413, 2003). Th is individual had resigned

the fi rst time when the municipality requested that

the employee move into the city while he was still

attending school in an adjacent community. Th e

employee had resigned a second time to accept a

position as a criminal investigator in a public defend-

er’s offi ce. When the municipality had an opening for

a police offi cer, the plaintiff applied for the position,

passed the written and agility examinations, and was

interviewed. After these three segments of the applica-

tion process were completed, the individual was

ranked eighth and was not off ered employment.

As a result of this hiring decision, the plaintiff brought

suit against the city and its police chief alleging age

and sex discrimination. Th e age discrimination claim

was fi led as a result of a comment made by the police

chief during the applicant’s agility examination, in

which the chief compared this individual to George

Foreman because he did not know when to quit. Th e

sex discrimination claim resulted when the position

was off ered to a female. Th e police chief had allegedly

informed the plaintiff that the female applicant was

hired because she was a qualifi ed female who ranked

close to the top in the interview process. After this

opening was fi lled, the city also hired three additional

offi cers out of the same applicant pool, one of whom

had allegedly scored lower on the oral interview than

the plaintiff . Th e plaintiff claimed to be more quali-

fi ed because of his education, training, and experi-

ence. After hearing the facts of this case, the federal

district court granted the city’s motion for summary

judgment and dismissed the action.

Th e plaintiff appealed the judgment on rejection of

the age discrimination claim to the U.S. court of

appeals. In its review of the decision, the appellate

court found that the district court appeared to have

accepted that the plaintiff had presented enough

evidence to satisfy a prima facie burden for an age

discrimination claim. Th e city argued that the plaintiff

was not qualifi ed for the police offi cer position be-

cause he had been designated ineligible for rehire after

the second resignation of employment from the city.

Both the district and appellate courts rejected the

city’s contention. Th e court of appeals found fault

with the district court because it had only considered

the city’s hiring of the female applicant in its assess-

ment of the city’s nondiscriminatory reason for not

hiring the plaintiff for the position. Th e district court

did not consider the applicant who had scored lower

on the oral interview than the plaintiff but was still

off ered a position with the city, nor did the district

court off er an explanation as to why consideration of

the facts were limited to the female hire. Th e appellant

found fault with this omission and asked the court of

appeals to consider the hiring of the applicant with

the lower oral interview score, the police chief ’s

reference to George Foreman, and the police chief ’s

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 97

participation in the hiring process as suffi cient evi-

dence for a trier of fact to disbelieve the city’s nondis-

crimination explanation for its actions. Th e appellate

court agreed with the appellant’s contentions, reversed

the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for

further proceedings on the age discrimination claim.

Th e city of Clarksville was named defendant in a case

fi led by a plaintiff who alleged the city had used dis-

crimination in its employment decision not to rehire

him ( Tartt v. City of Clarksville, U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit no. 04-5925, 2005). Th e plaintiff

had previously been employed by the police depart-

ment and had resigned when disciplinary action to

terminate his employment because of several repri-

mands and a violation of department rules for neglect

of duty was initiated. Th is individual met with the

police chief three months later and requested to be

rehired; however, his request was denied.

In a suit fi led with the U.S. district court, this indi-

vidual argued that the police department was guilty of

race discrimination in its refusal to rehire and that he

had been discriminated against during his tenure with

the department. Mr. Tartt noted that eight Caucasian

offi cers had resigned and been rehired by the city

within a year. Also, the plaintiff claimed that this

discrimination had contributed to a forced resignation

from the police force. Th e district court found that

the plaintiff had put forth enough evidence to make

out a prima facie case of racial discrimination against

the city under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411

U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817 [1973]). 4

Th e city did concede that the plaintiff had established

the fi rst three elements required; for the purposes of

summary judgment, the court concluded that the

plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine dispute of mate-

rial fact regarding less favorable treatment in the re-

quest for rehire. However, the court ruled that the

plaintiff had not presented suffi cient evidence to rebut

the city’s claim that rehire was not enacted because of

the nondiscriminatory reason of signifi cant disciplin-

ary and personal problems. Th e eight offi cers previ-

ously rehired were not similarly situated employees

with disciplinary problems. As a result, the district

court granted summary judgment to the city.

Discrimination in Promotion Other court cases have arisen as a result of the promo-

tion processes utilized by certain municipalities in

Tennessee. Th e Memphis Police Department was sued

over a process that was implemented to promote

several patrol offi cers to the rank of sergeant ( Johnson

et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit no. 01-6111, 2003). Th is process ini-

tially consisted of four components: (1) a written test

(20 percent), (2) a practical exercise test (50 percent),

(3) performance evaluations for the previous two years

(20 percent), and (4) seniority points (10 percent).

Th e city informed candidates that they would be

ranked based on total scores and the promotions

would be based on these rankings. Allegations

emerged that the city had released study materials to a

select group of individuals prior to the administration

of one of the tests. At fi rst, the city denied that any

part of the promotional process had been compro-

mised. However, when the news media produced a

copy of the practical exercise test during its adminis-

tration, the city acknowledged that the validity of this

testing component had been jeopardized. Th is test was

eliminated from the overall assessment, and the

weight of both the written test and the performance

evaluation were increased to 40 percent each.

Several individuals claimed that the city had inten-

tionally discriminated against African American and

Hispanic candidates by increasing the weight of cer-

tain components and eliminating other segments in

the promotional procedure after the city determined

the process had been compromised. Caucasian plain-

tiff s claimed they had been discriminated against

because unauthorized study materials for the practical

exercise component of the test had been released to a

select group of African American candidates. At least

52 individuals brought suit under Title VII against the

municipality over this process.

Two plaintiff s in this case fi led suit alleging racial

discrimination and violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Th ese plaintiff s requested that (1) any

promotions based on this selection process be perma-

nently suspended, (2) the city be required to create

and implement a new promotional process, (3) an

individual be appointed to oversee the development

and implementation of this process, and (4) all candi-

dates be allowed to review their scores for accuracy

before the promotional list was issued. Th e district

court denied these requests, and immediately the city

ranked the previous candidates according to the re-

vised process and promoted the top 63 candidates to

the rank of sergeant. Two months later, the plaintiff s

amended their complaint and added 50 additional

individuals who had not been selected for promotion

in the previous process. Th ese 52 plaintiff s requested

the same relief but also asked that those individuals

who had been promoted as a result of the fl awed

promotional process be required to compete in a new

promotional process.

After review, the district court declared the city’s pro-

motional process invalid and granted the defendant

leave to begin a new promotional process. Subse-

quently, the 51 sergeants whose promotions were re-

scinded also fi led a complaint against the municipality

requesting that the city be prohibited from demoting

them or reducing their pay. As a result of the indiscre-

tion that occurred in the original promotion process,

the city subjected itself to two major employment

98 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

lawsuits — one alleging the intentional discrimination

against African American and Hispanic plaintiff s by

the elimination and increase in the weights of the

written test and performance evaluation components,

and the other for intentional discrimination against

Caucasian plaintiff s for the advanced release of study

materials to a select group of African American candi-

dates in the promotion process. Consequently, the

sergeants who had been awarded promotions based on

this test were required to compete in a new promo-

tional process, and the individuals who were shown to

have received, used, and benefi ted from the unauthor-

ized study materials were disqualifi ed from this new

process.

Th e city of Memphis was also named defendant in a

lawsuit fi led regarding its promotional process for

sergeants to lieutenants on the police force. Several

African American sergeants brought suit against the

municipality alleging violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case, the district

court ruled that the cutoff score for the city’s written

test, which was used as one criteria for promotion to

lieutenant, discriminated against African American

candidates ( Isabel et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5912, 2005).

In all, 120 sergeants competed for this promotion to

lieutenant, including 63 African American and 57

Caucasian candidates. Th e promotional process con-

sisted of a written test (20 percent), a practical exercise

test (50 percent), performance evaluations from the

previous two years (20 percent), and seniority points

(10 percent).

Th e cutoff score for the written test was originally

established at 70 percent. Th is requirement was a

carryover from a prior agreement the city had with the

police department, which was established in a memo-

randum of understanding and stated that a candidate

must obtain a passing score of 70 on a written job

knowledge test in order to be eligible for promotion

to lieutenant. However, the proportion of minority

candidates to nonminority candidates who passed the

written test in the promotion process actually violated

the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule. Th is rule states that “a

selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which

is less than four-fi fths (or eighty percent) of the rate

for the group with the highest rate will generally be

regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evi-

dence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-

fi fths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal

enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact”

( EEOC 2007 ).

Th e allocation of proof for a prima facie case involving

disparate or adverse impact rests fi rst with the plain-

tiff , who must establish that the employer’s selection

practice or device had a substantial impact on the

protected group. Th e employer has the opportunity to

demonstrate that this practice or testing mechanism

was job related or consistent with business necessity.

Th e burden of proof then shifts back to the plaintiff ,

who must demonstrate that the employer refused to

choose an existing alternative method that did not

have a disparate impact on the protected class ( EEOC

2007 ).

When the cutoff score of 70 was used for this test, the

passing rate of minorities was less than four-fi fths of

the passing rate of nonminorities. A total of 19 of the

64 African Americans who took the exam achieved a

score of 70 or higher (29.7 percent), while 38 of the

56 nonminority candidates who took the test achieved

a passing score (67.9 percent). As a result, the selec-

tion rate for this test was calculated at 43.8 percent,

which was in violation of the four-fi fths rule. An

industrial psychologist who had managed the test

decided to eliminate nine of the test questions because

he felt they were faulty; however, all candidates were

given credit for answering the questions correctly so

that the test would still be scored on a 100-point

scale. Also, the psychologist determined that the cut-

off score should be lowered to 66 in order to avoid

any adverse impact. With these two modifi cations in

the testing process, 98 candidates passed the test,

including 47 African Americans; more importantly,

the test did not violate the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule.

Four individuals who scored below 66 were not al-

lowed to continue in the promotional process. As a

result, these four applicants fi led discrimination

charges against the city. Th e case was based on other

statistical analyses of the written test scores that re-

vealed signifi cant adverse impact on African American

candidates, even though the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule

was not violated. Th e plaintiff s’ expert noted that a

statistically signifi cant diff erence in minority and

nonminority candidates’ scores did exist when the

t -test and z -test were applied. 5 Th e district court con-

curred that the written test unlawfully discriminated

against the African American sergeants and that the

four plaintiff s were also entitled to promotion to

lieutenant. Th is promotion was retroactive to the

same date that the fi rst group of candidates was pro-

moted, and the plaintiff s were compensated for back

pay and overtime, as well as attorneys’ fees. When this

case was appealed by the city to the U.S. court of

appeals, the district court’s judgment was affi rmed in

all respects.

Another group of individuals fi lled a lawsuit against

this same city alleging they had suff ered due process

violations and racial discrimination in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment during the promotional

process administered to individuals in the city’s fi re

department ( Firefi ghters United for Fairness et al. v.

City of Memphis, U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Tennessee no. 02-2431, 2005). Th e court

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 99

ruled for the city, however, in this case, fi nding that

the plaintiff s’ rights had not been violated. Several

individuals alleged that they had suff ered racial dis-

crimination in their participation in the fi re depart-

ment’s lieutenant and battalion chief promotional

process. Th e promotional process for lieutenant con-

sisted of three weighted components, including a

written job knowledge test (22.5 percent), a practical

video test (70 percent), and a credit for seniority (7.5

percent). Th e promotional process for battalion chief

utilized results from a practical video test (48 percent),

an in-basket exam (27 percent), a group interpersonal

skills exercise (17.5 percent), and a credit for seniority

(7.5 percent). Th ese two processes were developed and

administered by an industrial organizational psychol-

ogy consulting fi rm contracted by the city. In all, 118

candidates for battalion chief and 541 candidates for

lieutenant were involved in the promotional process.

All information related to the promotional process,

the review process, and other relevant issues were

related to the city’s fi re department by the contracted

administrator. Th e fi re department was responsible for

providing this information to the candidates. Before

the fi rst promotional roster was established, all candi-

dates were allowed to review their transcripts, the

answer key, and the videotape of their practical test for

accuracy regarding transcription, scoring, and clerical

errors. Specifi c concerns were addressed by the process

administrator and changes were made if appropriate.

Th e plaintiff s in this case alleged racial discrimination

against the city’s fi re department because several Cau-

casian candidates had been allowed to participate in

the promotional process even though they had not

been employed long enough at the required grade

level at the time of testing. Th e plaintiff s also claimed

that they had been denied procedural due process

because the plaintiff s perceived that the city had not

responded to or given them suffi cient time to review

the testing procedure and determine their correct

scores. In this case, the U.S. district court determined

that the plaintiff s had not suffi ciently established a

prima facie case of racial discrimination and that these

plaintiff s had been aff orded suffi cient due process for

obtaining a fair and accurate score.

Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Sexual harassment and hostile work environment

claims have also been fi led in the federal court system

against numerous local governments. A sheriff ’s de-

partment in western Tennessee was named defendant

in a case alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimi-

nation, and hostile work environment related to a

female’s employment by that department ( Rudd v.

Shelby County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit no. 04-5939, 2006). Th is individual claimed

that she had been sexually harassed by a male co-

worker when he handcuff ed her to a fi le cabinet,

rubbed against her, draped a belly chain around her

neck, and asked her over the intercom if it was “too

hot in the kitchen” for her. Th e female employee

reported this harassment to a superior offi cer who

referred her to the Internal Aff airs Division, which

began an investigation within fi ve days of the inci-

dent. Th e plaintiff was allowed to work in another

facility so that she would not come in contact with

the coworker. As a result of the investigation, the male

coworker was demoted in rank, suspended for 30 days

without pay, and placed on probation for six months.

Th is male individual appealed the department’s ac-

tions and retired with full rank and pay during this

appeals process. Th e female plaintiff resigned her

position within two weeks of the harassment incident

and fi led suit alleging sexual harassment, gender dis-

crimination, and a hostile work environment in viola-

tion of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the

Tennessee Human Rights Act.

Th e female plaintiff was awarded almost $ 1 million in compensatory damages, back pay, and lost future

wages by the jury that heard the initial case in district

court. Th is decision was reversed, however, by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e

appellate court examined the fi ve elements set forth

in Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc. (1213 F.3d

868, 872 [1997]), which stated that in order for an

individual to prevail in a sexual harassment case in-

volving a coworker, (1) the employee must be a mem-

ber of a protected class, (2) the employee must have

been subject to unwanted sexual harassment, (3) the

harassment must have been based on the employee’s

sex, (4) the harassment must have unreasonably inter-

fered with the employee’s work environment and

created a hostile work environment, and (5) the em-

ployer must have known or should have known of the

charged sexual harassment and failed to implement

prompt and corrective action. Th e appellate court

concluded that even though the plaintiff satisfi ed the

fi rst four elements of this test, she did not satisfy the

fi fth. She had failed to prove that the department did

not take prompt and eff ective corrective action. Th e

court determined that the local government adminis-

tration had demonstrated a good faith eff ort to safe-

guard the plaintiff when she was referred to the

Internal Aff airs Division and allowed to work in a

separate facility. Th e appellate court concluded that

the trial jury had erred in its decision and remanded

the case for judgment in favor of the local

government.

Th e city of Memphis also prevailed in a case involving

alleged same-sex sexual discrimination. A plaintiff

brought suit against the city’s Housing Authority

alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and retalia-

tion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 ( Terry v. Memphis Housing Authority, U.S.

100 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

no. 05-2283, 2006). Th e male plaintiff had been

employed by the housing authority as a fi eld com-

mander when he was allegedly harassed by a male

supervisor. After the plaintiff rejected the unwelcome

sexual advance, he contended that he was treated

diff erently and subjected to several forms of retaliation

including failure of the housing authority to pay his

overtime wages, a threat of loss of his employment

position, a written reprimand for inappropriate and

unprofessional behavior, and failure to promote him

to an open director’s position. Th is individual fi led a

suit alleging violations of Title VII based on retalia-

tion, failure to promote, and a hostile work

environment.

Th e U.S. district court concluded that the plaintiff

failed to state a valid retaliation claim because almost

one year had passed between the single incidence of

sexual harassment and the earliest alleged act of retali-

ation. 6 Also, evidence of a causal connection between

the incidence of harassment and the adverse employ-

ment action was not established. Because the position

in question pertaining to the failure to promote claim

had not been fi lled, the plaintiff could not claim relief

under Title VII. With regard to the hostile work envi-

ronment claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff had

not satisfi ed requirements for the Title VII discrimina-

tion claim of a hostile work environment. Th e plain-

tiff contended that the acts occurred because of his

rejection of the supervisor’s sexual advances rather

than because of his gender. Th e court ruled that the

acts that the plaintiff complained of did not include a

sexual advance, nor was there any indication that the

actions were related to rejection of the sexual advance

that took place approximately 18 months before. As a

result of these fi ndings, the court ruled for dismissal of

the case.

In another case involving sexual harassment and hos-

tile work environment claims by a former female

employee of a sheriff ’s department, Crockett County’s

motion for summary judgment was denied by the

U.S. district court ( Harbison v. Crockett County, U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

no. 01-1373, 2003). Th is individual claimed that she

was sexually harassed during her employment and

then retaliated against after complaining of the alleged

sexual harassment. Th e female plaintiff also stated she

was constructively discharged from employment with

the sheriff ’s department as a result of these allegations.

Th e alleged sexual harassment occurred when the

plaintiff was employed as a reserve deputy and part-

time deputy for the department. A male employee

allegedly began touching her and making sexually

off ensive remarks to her. Th e female employee re-

ported these incidents to her supervisors, including

the sheriff ; however, no actions were taken against the

male employee. Th e plaintiff also reported the

incidents to the county executive, and she was sus-

pended from her duties pending further investigation.

Less than one week later, the female employee re-

signed from the sheriff ’s department. Th e defendants

in this case asked for summary judgment on the hos-

tile work environment claim and contended that the

alleged sexual harassment was not suffi ciently perva-

sive to alter the conditions of her working environ-

ment or to create an abusive and hostile environment.

Conduct of this type is not actionable under Title VII.

Th e defendants also contended that the plaintiff was

not subjected to any retaliation, even though the male

employee was a supervisor to the plaintiff and he had

threatened to make things diffi cult for the plaintiff if

she did not engage in a sexual relationship with him.

Additionally, the sheriff had allegedly threatened to

fi re the plaintiff depending on the results of the inves-

tigation. Th e court denied both of the defendants’

motions because they could not off er a legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Th e court

also rejected the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on the constructive discharge claim, con-

cluding that a jury could fi nd that a reasonable person

would feel the need to resign from his or her position

after allegedly being subjected to the actions that the

plaintiff had endured. In this case, an order denying

the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was

issued, and the case proceeded through U.S. district

court.

Family and Medical Leave Act Local government entities in Tennessee have also had

employees or former employees fi le cases against them

alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave

Act. A police offi cer fi led a complaint against his

former employer for alleged violations of his rights

under the FMLA when the employer denied his inter-

mittent leave to care for his infant daughter ( Maynard

v. Town of Monterey, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit no. 03-5202, 2003). Th is employee had

been absent from work for a period greater than three

days and had refused to report back to work after

being given two opportunities to do so. Th is indi-

vidual also alleged sexual discrimination under Title

VII, claiming he was fi red because he was a male. Th e

district court granted summary judgment to the de-

fendants, and the plaintiff appealed this decision to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e

appellate court determined that the plaintiff did not

fulfi ll the requisites for fi ling a Title VII claim because

this individual had failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to the Title VII claim. Also, the

plaintiff did not possess a right-to-sue letter from the

EEOC, which was necessary to pursue a Title VII

claim in district court.

Th e appellate court also found that the plaintiff had

not reached an agreement with the employer regard-

ing intermittent leave; therefore, he was not entitled

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 101

to take it in this manner. In addition, the plaintiff ’s

claim that his termination was a violation of his

FMLA rights was rejected because the plaintiff had

been absent for a period of three consecutive work

days, and this absence was unauthorized. Th e plaintiff

had remained out of work additional days consecutive

to this period while the employer advised him repeat-

edly to report to work. As a result of the plaintiff ’s

actions, the employer considered that he had termi-

nated his position voluntarily. Th e court of appeals

agreed that the plaintiff ’s action constituted a volun-

tary resignation and that the former employee was not

eligible to recover under the FMLA for an allegedly

adverse employment action.

A former employee of another sheriff ’s department

fi led suit against this department for fi ring him be-

cause of excessive absenteeism, which was allegedly in

violation of the FMLA, ADA, and Tennessee Human

Rights Act ( Lackey v. Jackson County, U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5193, 2004). Th e

plaintiff was employed by the department as a correc-

tions offi cer and had missed work on several occasions

during 2000. Th e sheriff had informed the plaintiff in

January of 2000 after his fi rst absence of three days

that he would need to furnish a doctor’s statement any

time he missed work because of an illness. Th e plain-

tiff furnished a doctor’s excuse for two other inci-

dences; however, several other absences were not

documented in this manner. Th e sheriff terminated

the plaintiff ’s employment in early August 2000 when

the employee did not report to work on an assigned

Saturday. Th e plaintiff contended that he had com-

plied with the employer’s notifi cation process by noti-

fying the sheriff ’s department prior to the start of his

shift that he would not be in to work and the reason

for his absence. Th is information was given to which-

ever individual had answered the phone.

After the plaintiff was terminated for excessive absen-

teeism, he fi led a claim for unemployment compensa-

tion. In his response to questions regarding this

separation, the plaintiff stated

that he was fi red because of

absenteeism and tardiness and

that the absences were attribut-

able to the plaintiff ’s attendance

at a meeting. In his charge of

discrimination fi led with the

Tennessee Human Rights Com-

mission and the EEOC, however,

the plaintiff claimed that he had

taken periodic medical leave

from work because of several

health problems, including

chronic back pain, migraines,

diabetes, and hypertension. In

examining the facts of the case,

the district court determined that

the plaintiff was an eligible employee entitled to

FMLA protection; however, the plaintiff had failed to

establish that he had a serious health condition under

the FMLA. Th e plaintiff did not submit any evidence

to the court that he had any of the illnesses he

claimed. As a result, the district court granted the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and this

decision was reaffi rmed by the U.S. court of appeals.

Conclusion Th ese sample cases present a brief glimpse of the legal

proceedings that municipal governments, managers,

and other public offi cials are often subject to regard-

ing the day-to-day human resource functions that

pertain to their employees. While the decisions cited

in this study involve only local governments in Ten-

nessee, the federal laws and their interpretations are

applicable to local government units in all 50 states.

Th e outcome of each case off ers valuable insight into

how the actions of municipal employees, supervisors,

administrators, and elected offi cials across the United

States can infl uence municipal liability in legal pro-

ceedings regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Em-

ployment Act. A recent estimate states that almost 70

percent of Americans qualify under one or more pro-

tected classes defi ned by these antidiscrimination laws

( Malos 2006 ). Local government administrators must

be keenly aware of their current, former, and future

employees’ rights and protections in order to safe-

guard their departments and governments from the

liabilities that can arise in the employment law area.

Th is understanding often comes from both theory and

practice; however, the fi eld is characterized by con-

stant changes in technology, employment laws and

policies, workforce composition, and administrative

ethics.

New Public Management, with its emphases on de-

bureaucratization, decentralization, and civil service

reform, has attempted to make public sector entities

function similar to those in the

private sector; however, the im-

plications for human resource

management at all levels of gov-

ernment are yet to be fully deter-

mined. Th e debate regarding civil

service systems and at-will em-

ployment of public employees

will continue as more state and

local governments choose to

declassify many of the traditional

job positions of civil servants. At-

will employment off ers little or

no job protection and eliminates

the right that civil service em-

ployees have to terminate for just

cause. Th e employment laws that

New Public Management with its emphases on

debureaucratization, decentralization, and civil

service reform has attempted to make public sector entities

function similar to those of the private sector; however, the

implications for human resource management at all levels of

government are yet to be fully determined.

102 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

have been discussed in this analysis were enacted to

protect all classes of employees from discrimination

and arbitrary management decisions. Future research

is required to objectively evaluate whether New Public

Management and its accompanying changes have

enhanced public sector employee responsiveness,

productivity, and management without precariously

altering public sector employer liabilities and public

employee protections in the human resource policies

and actions of state and local governments.

Notes 1. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (517 U.S.

44 [1996]), the Supreme Court held that Con-

gress lacks the power under Article I of the U.S.

Constitution to abrogate the states’ sovereign

immunity in federal court established under the

Eleventh Amendment. Th e question as to

whether Congress could use its Article I powers

to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from

suits in its own courts was resolved in the Court’s

ruling in Alden v. Maine (527 U.S. 706 [1999]),

which determined that Congress has no such

authority under these circumstances also. Th is

ruling maintained sovereign immunity for the

states and limited congressional authority to pass

legislation that uses state courts as a means of

redress. Th e Supreme Court also held in Kimel

et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al. (528 U.S. 62

[2000]) that the Age Discrimination in Employ-

ment Act’s abrogation of the states’ Eleventh

Amendment immunity exceeded Congress’s

authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment and that suits in federal court by state

employees to recover monetary damages under

Title I of the ADA were barred by the Eleventh

Amendment ( Board of Trustees of University of

Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 [2001]).

2. In Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v.

Garrett (531 U.S. 356 [2001]), the Supreme

Court also noted that Eleventh Amendment

immunity does not extend to local government

units such as cities and counties. In delivering the

opinion of the Court, Chief Justice William H.

Rehnquist noted that local government units do

not possess immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment and therefore are subject to private

claims for violations of the ADA without the

reliance of Congress on § 5 of the Fourteenth

Amendment to assert this liability. Th e case cited

as precedent was Lincoln County v. Luning (133

U.S. 529 [1890]), in which the Court reasoned

that although a county is territorially part of a

state, the county is a corporation created by that

state and both private and municipal corpora-

tions may sue and be sued in all courts just as

individuals. Over time, political subdivisions of

the states have assumed many of the governing

responsibilities exercised previously by the states;

however, the Supreme Court continues to main-

tain a distinction between the state and its local

political subdivisions in its interpretation of the

scope of the Eleventh Amendment. See also Moor

v. County of Alameda (411 U.S. 693, 717 – 21

[1973], Mt. Healthy City School District Board of

Education v. Doyle (429 U.S. 274, 280 [1977]),

and Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

(465 U.S. 89, 123 n. 34 [1984]).

3. Th e 350 cases identifi ed through PACER are not

considered by the author to be an all-inclusive list

of cases fi led against public entities in Tennessee

during this time period. Of these 350 cases, 277

involved a city, town, or county government. Th e

intent of this research was to illustrate through

case study several of the legal issues that these

local governments encountered. Statistical analy-

sis of a more comprehensive data set is an excel-

lent recommendation for future study.

4. In order to establish a prima facie case of racial

discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff or

complainant must demonstrate (1) that he or she

belongs to a racial minority, (2) that he or she

applied and was qualifi ed for a job or promotion

for which the employer was seeking applicants,

(3) that he or she was considered for and denied

the position despite his or her qualifi cations, and

(4) that the position remained open and indi-

viduals of similar qualifi cations were considered.

Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has the

initial burden of proving a prima facie case by

preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff

does establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts

to the employer to articulate some legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Th e

plaintiff must then demonstrate that the proff ered

reason was not the true reason for the employ-

ment decision (see Texas Department of Commu-

nity Aff airs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256

[1981]).

5. Th e t -test evaluated the diff erence in the mean

scores of the minority (69.17) and nonminority

candidates (75.59) and was determined to be

signifi cant by the plaintiff s’ expert. Th e z -test

measured statistical success for each group and

demonstrated that Caucasian candidates had a

passing rate of 90 percent as compared to the

passing rate of 74.6 percent by minority candi-

dates. Th e expert for the plaintiff s also testifi ed

that this diff erence was statistically signifi cant.

6. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) requires that an

aggrieved individual who seeks to fi le a Title VII

claim in federal court fi rst present a charge with

the EEOC within 180 days after the allegedly

unlawful employment practice occurred. If a

discrimination charge is also fi led with a state or

local agency that has authority to grant relief

regarding the employment practice, this time

period is extended to 300 days.

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 103

References Battaglio , R. Paul , and Stephen E. Condrey . 2006 .

Civil Service Reform: Examining State and Local

Government Cases . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 26 ( 2 ): 118 – 38 .

Bowman , James S . 2002 . At-Will Employment in

Florida Government: A Naked Formula to Corrupt

Public Service . Working USA 6 ( 2 ): 90 – 102 .

Bowman , James S. , Marc G. Gertz , Sally C. Gertz ,

and Russell L. Williams . 2003 . Civil Service

Reform in Florida State Government: Employee

Attitudes 1 Year Later . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 23 ( 4 ): 286 – 304 .

Coggburn , Jerrell D . 2000 . Th e Eff ects of

Deregulation on State Government Personnel

Administration . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 20 ( 4 ): 24 – 39 .

— — — . 2006 . At-Will Employment in Government:

Insights from the State of Texas . Review of Public

Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 158 – 77 .

Condrey , Stephen E . 2002 . Reinventing State Civil

Service Systems: Th e Georgia Experience . Review of

Public Personnel Administration 22 ( 2 ): 114 – 24 .

Durchslag , Melvyn R . 2002 . State Sovereign Immunity:

A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution .

Westport, CT : Praeger .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) .

2007 . Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection

Procedures, Section 4: Information on Impact .

http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniguideprint.

html#12 [accessed September 29, 2008] .

— — — . 2008 . Sexual Harassment . http://www.eeoc.

gov/types/sexual_harassment.html [accessed

September 29, 2008] .

Gertz , Sally . 2006 . At-Will Employment: Origins,

Applications, Exceptions and Expansions in the

Public Service. Social Science Research Network .

http://ssrn.com/abstract=946481 [accessed

September 29, 2008] .

Hays , Steven W. , and Jessica E. Sowa . 2006 . A Broader

Look at the “Accountability” Movement: Some

Grim Realities in State Civil Service Systems . Review

of Public Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 102 – 17 .

Hou , Yilin , Patricia Ingraham , Stuart Bretschneider ,

and Sally Coleman Selden . 2000 . Decentralization

of Human Resource Management: Driving Forces

and Implications . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 20 ( 4 ): 9 – 23 .

Kearney , Richard C. , and Steven W. Hays . 1998 .

Reinventing Government, Th e New Public

Management and Civil Service Systems in

International Perspective . Review of Public

Personnel Administration 18 ( 4 ): 38 – 54 .

Kellough , J. Edward . 1999 . Reinventing Public

Personnel Management: Ethical Implications for

Managers and Public Personnel Systems . Public

Personnel Management 28 ( 4 ): 655 – 71 .

— — — . 2006 . Understanding Affi rmative Action:

Politics, Discrimination, and the Search for Justice .

Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press .

Kellough , J. Edward , and Sally Coleman Selden .

2003 . Th e Reinvention of Public Personnel

Administration: An Analysis of the Diff usion of

Personnel Management Reforms in the States .

Public Administration Review 63 ( 2 ): 165 – 76 .

LeBrec , David J. , and Kurt Foerster . 1985 . Public

Offi cials Liability: Th e Loss Exposure . In Risk

Management Today: A How to Guide for Local

Government , edited by Natalie Wasserman and

Dean G. Phelus , 77 – 87 . Washington, DC :

International City/County Management

Association .

Malos , Stanley B . 2006 . Current Legal Issues in

Performance Appraisal . http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/

malos_s/bookchap.htm [accessed September 29,

2008] .

Nigro , Lloyd G. , and J. Edward Kellough . 2000 . Civil

Service Reform in Georgia: Going to the Edge?

Review of Public Personnel Administration 20 ( 4 ):

41 – 54 .

Patton , W. David , Stephanie L. Witt , Nicholas P.

Lovrich , and Patricia J. Fredericksen . 2002 .

Human Resource Management: Th e Public Service

Perspective . Boston : Houghton Miffl in .

Riccucci , Norma M . 2006 . Public Personnel

Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges .

New York : Longman .

Rosenbloom , David H . 2007 . Th e Public

Employment Relationship and the Supreme Court

in the 1980s . In Public Personnel Administration

and Labor Relations , edited by Norma M. Riccucci ,

201 – 16 . Armonk , NY : M.E. Sharpe .

Rosenbloom , David H. , and Robert S. Kravchuk .

2005 . Public Administration: Understanding

Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector .

Boston : McGraw-Hill .

Woodard , Colleen A . 2005 . Merit by Any Other

Name — Reframing the Civil Service First

Principle . Public Administration Review 65 ( 1 ):

109 – 16 .