Claims of Improper Training Fail to Sustain Discrimination Lawsuit

​The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Boise State University customer service agent with well-documented performance problems despite allegations that the health care services provider for the university discriminated against him by not providing either proper training or timely orientation materials.

University Health Services Boise State University ("University Health") hired the plaintiff as a customer service representative in August 2011. His boss documented repeated performance issues, including instances during an approximately two-week period from September to October 2011 where the plaintiff allegedly engaged in inappropriate conversations with patients, was unwilling to answer telephone calls, and failed to follow procedures for checking patients out and for recording patients' insurance information. The plaintiff contacted HR, alleging discrimination.

In mid-November 2011, University Health terminated the plaintiff because of performance problems. The company provided him the option to resign in lieu of termination, and he chose to resign.

He then filed a lawsuit and alleged:

• Unlawful discrimination in violation of the Idaho Human Rights Act.
  
• Retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
  
• Breach of his employment contract.
  
• Breach of the implied covenant of good faith.
  

[SHRM members-only toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity]

The lower court dismissed all of his claims against University Health and his boss. The plaintiff appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, which also concluded that his allegations were meritless.

The plaintiff, who represented himself during the lawsuit, alleged that he was not trained properly; that he did not receive his orientation package until months after starting in his role, while a white employee received her package immediately; that non-Hispanic employees made similar mistakes and did not receive punishment; and that the only other Hispanic male employee endured similar treatment as he did.

In dismissing his claims, the supreme court pointed to the record of the plaintiff's "well-documented performance concerns" that led to University Health's termination of his employment. The court also rejected his retaliation claim and highlighted that his performance issues began and were recorded by his boss before his discrimination complaint to HR.

The plaintiff, an at-will employee, further claimed that University Health breached the implied covenant of good faith by terminating his employment before his probationary period ended, delaying the delivery of his orientation materials, failing to provide him with appropriate training and fabricating the basis of his termination. The court concluded that Idaho law does not mandate employees be provided a job throughout their entire probationary period.

Finally, the court rejected the breach of contract claim—a claim that University Health unlawfully failed to follow its own internal policies—because the parties had not entered into either an express or implied employment contract.

Mendez v. University Health Services Boise State University, Idaho, Docket 44090 (Jan. 17, 2018).

Professional Pointer: Employers must thoroughly and promptly document employee performance issues. All documentation should be placed in an employee's personnel file and retained. The documentation is critical to demonstrate that any adverse employment actions were taken for legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons.

Erin L. Winters is an attorney with Pacific Employment Law in San Francisco.

Was this article useful? SHRM offers thousands of tools, templates and other exclusive member benefits, including compliance updates, sample policies, HR expert advice, education discounts, a growing online member community and much more. Join/Renew Now and let SHRM help you work smarter.