by Vijay Mani
May 23rd, 2014

Last year, Chief Justice John Roberts, in ruling with the majority that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, wrote “Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare.” Even if true, this statement does not speak to the prevalence of subtly discriminatory actions, often based on hidden, deep-seated prejudices, such as those demonstrated recently by Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling.  Sterling showed the world that an outward appearance of racial neutrality may serve to mask inner bigotry that may affect actions taken by an employer.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in the workplace, has noted that race discrimination may take less-than-obvious forms.  This includes race discrimination that involves disparate treatment based on an individual’s association with a person of a certain race (or status in another “protected class”―discussed in previous JGL blog posts here and here―such as those with disabilities), referred to as “association discrimination”

While Title VII does not include provisions explicitly prohibiting association discrimination, it has been interpreted broadly by the courts to protect individuals victimized by employment decisions based in whole or in part on an individual’s association with someone of a particular race. For example, in Holcomb v. Iona College, the employer terminated a white head basketball coach, claiming that the removal stemmed from a poor-performing team that needed an overhaul.  Coach Holcomb, however, claimed that he was fired because his wife was black, and Iona’s athletic director had openly disclosed his dislike of interracial marriages and even expressed his desire to decrease the presence of African-Americans at basketball events.  Iona argued that even if the latter were true, the Plaintiff’s own race was not at issue, and thus, he had no standing under Title VII. 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that when an adverse employment action arises out of an employer's disapproval of interracial association, the employee is being subjected to the adverse action due to his own race.  As such, he has a cause of action for racial discrimination cognizable under Title VII. As explained by the EEOC, Title VII’s protection against association discrimination is not limited to situations involving the race of a spouse; it also protects against discrimination based on association with friends of a certain race, as well as memberships in or association with a race-based organization or group. 

In the case of Donald Sterling, even if he somehow manages to retain ownership of the Clippers, he likely could face other individual causes of action based on race discrimination, and perhaps association discrimination.  After clearly expressing his disapproval of the association with African-Americans he may be subject to claims by all Clippers employees, regardless of race, who have been adversely affected by Sterling’s employment decisions, provided they can prove that the decision was based, at least in part, on their association with African-Americans. Whether blatant or subtle, such claims may be on the rise, and justifiably so.

Vijay Mani is an attorney in the firm’s Qui Tam litigation and Labor/Employment Law practice groups.  He is highly active in the firm’s False Claims Act practice, advocating on behalf of whistleblowers throughout the country in claims against government contractors that have committed fraud. He is passionate about helping whistleblower clients who have gone out on a limb to uncover massive fraud schemes perpetrated by their employers that would likely remain hidden forever if left unexposed.

Contact Vijay Mani

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


The JGL Law Blog is made available by the Firm and/or the law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. The JGL Law Blog is not designed to and does not provide specific legal advice. Use of, or comments on, this Blog does not create an Attorney Client Relationship with the Firm or any of the authors of the Blog Posts.

This blog is for general informational purposes only. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA is a law firm and some of the information on the blog relates to legal topics. Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA does not offer or dispense legal advice through this blog or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the blog, the reader agrees that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, PA or its attorneys. The blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state. The information on the blog may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the blog is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed at or through the blog are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. The JGL Law Blog should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in Circular 230, we inform you that any tax advice contained on this site (including any links provided) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.