Employers Liable for Contractor’s Discriminatory Acts
- By Your mom
- •
- 01 Apr, 2010
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Connecticut, recently ruled that
employers can be held directly liable for the discriminatory acts of contractors hired to perform
certain tasks on their behalf. In Halpert v. Manhattan Apts., the court found a company that
hired an independent contractor to conduct job interviews was liable for discriminatory remarks
made by the contractor during the hiring process. While the case involved the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the court made it clear that the same principles apply under
Title VII.
In this case, Manhattan Apartments hired Robert Brooks, an independent contractor, to
screen, interview, and hire employees for Manhattan Apartments. In interviewing the plaintiff,
Michael Halpert, Brooks allegedly told Halpert he was “too old” for the position. Halpert sued
Manhattan Apartments claiming a violation of the ADEA.
In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals found that when an employer hires an
individual to interview candidates and make employment decisions on its behalf, the company
may be held liable if that individual improperly discriminates on the basis of age, or any other
protected characteristic. This is true whether the individual responsible for the conduct is an
employee or independent contractor. When an independent contractor is used, liability attaches
directly under agency theory, making the company liable for the acts of any of its actual or
apparent agents.
To limit legal exposure, employers should carefully screen contractors, and make sure
they are trained in equal employment opportunity practices. Also, any agreement between the
employer and contractor should include indemnification language so that the employer is
indemnified for any acts of the contractor that may expose the employer to liability. These steps
are especially important as firms continue to outsource more human resource work and thereby
lose direct control over important interactions.
employers can be held directly liable for the discriminatory acts of contractors hired to perform
certain tasks on their behalf. In Halpert v. Manhattan Apts., the court found a company that
hired an independent contractor to conduct job interviews was liable for discriminatory remarks
made by the contractor during the hiring process. While the case involved the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the court made it clear that the same principles apply under
Title VII.
In this case, Manhattan Apartments hired Robert Brooks, an independent contractor, to
screen, interview, and hire employees for Manhattan Apartments. In interviewing the plaintiff,
Michael Halpert, Brooks allegedly told Halpert he was “too old” for the position. Halpert sued
Manhattan Apartments claiming a violation of the ADEA.
In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals found that when an employer hires an
individual to interview candidates and make employment decisions on its behalf, the company
may be held liable if that individual improperly discriminates on the basis of age, or any other
protected characteristic. This is true whether the individual responsible for the conduct is an
employee or independent contractor. When an independent contractor is used, liability attaches
directly under agency theory, making the company liable for the acts of any of its actual or
apparent agents.
To limit legal exposure, employers should carefully screen contractors, and make sure
they are trained in equal employment opportunity practices. Also, any agreement between the
employer and contractor should include indemnification language so that the employer is
indemnified for any acts of the contractor that may expose the employer to liability. These steps
are especially important as firms continue to outsource more human resource work and thereby
lose direct control over important interactions.
