The Seventh Circuit, which covers Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, recently ruled that a bank’s alleged bias against one of its managers based on the immigration status of the manager’s husband is not actionable under Title VII. (In other words, Title VII doesn’t cover discrimination based on immigration or citizenship status.) In affirming the lower court’s prior ruling in favor of the bank, the Seventh Circuit determined that “alienage [i.e., immigration status] is not a protected classification under Title VII.” Because of this determination, the Court ruled that the manager had no claim of Title VII discrimination against the bank.
Background…Immigration Issues and Manager’s Questionable Conduct
According to the Court, the manager’s husband entered the United States illegally from Mexico in 1997 without a valid visa or work permit. Once in the United States, the husband obtained an individual tax identification number (ITIN) from the IRS and attempted to start a car detailing and repair business. The husband and the bank manager met in the United States and were married in February, 2001.
Thereafter, the husband, with some assistance from his wife, used his ITIN to open up two bank accounts at the bank; he also had a joint bank account with his wife. The husband’s business venture never took hold and in December, 2007, he returned to Mexico to try and sort out his citizenship status.
The manager, for her part, requested two weeks of vacation from her supervisor in the first part of 2008 so that she could go to Mexico and help her husband. Word got back to the bank’s security officer that one of the bank’s managers had joint accounts with a known undocumented alien. The security officer was concerned that this arrangement might be problematic under bank fraud laws and set up a face-to-face meeting with the manager in February, 2008.
During that meeting, the manager admitted that her husband had entered the United States illegally. The security officer, in response, stated his belief that the husband, as an “illegal alien from Mexico,” must have used fraudulent documents to open his bank accounts.
In the days that followed the face-to-face meeting, the security officer finished up his investigation and concluded that the husband’s bank accounts had been opened with fraudulent documentation. The security officer also concluded that the manager had allowed these acts to occur. A follow-up meeting was scheduled with the manager on February 19, 2008. Although the manager—and her attorney—initially showed up for the meeting, they walked out and refused to meet with the bank’s representatives after being told that the manager’s attorney could not attend. That afternoon, the bank sent a letter to the manager, terminating her employment for refusing to participate in the meeting.
The manager later filed suit against the bank alleging, in pertinent part, that the bank had unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of Title VII due to her husband’s race and national origin. In response to a motion filed by the bank, the lower court ruled in the bank’s favor on the grounds that the manager failed to show that her firing was based on an impermissible reason. The manager appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit.
The Limits of Title VII’s Protections…Immigration Status Not Covered
The Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the bank and rejected the manager’s arguments. The Court found that the manager’s arguments only showed, at most, that the bank’s actions (specifically, the actions of the security officer) were motivated by the husband’s immigration status as opposed to the husband’s race or national origin. Importantly, the Court, relying on an earlier decision from the United States Supreme Court (Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.), ruled that Title VII does not protect against immigration-based discrimination. That is, although Title VII covers discrimination based on one’s ancestry, it does not cover discrimination based on immigration or citizenship status.
Additionally, the Court explained that although there is a different federal law—the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC § 1324b)—that guards against unfair immigration-related employment practices, that law explicitly carves out and excludes unauthorized (i.e., “illegal”) aliens. Thus, because the manager never contested the fact that her husband was not lawfully present in the United States, she had no claim under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Side Note…What About Discrimination Based on Spouse’s Race or National Origin?
One side note worth mentioning stems from a question left unanswered by the Court in its opinion. Recall that the manager was pursuing her Title VII claim not based on her race or national origin, but instead based on the race and national origin of her spouse. On this point, the Court noted that it has not yet determined whether discrimination based on the race or national origin of a person’s spouse or partner is protected under Title VII. And although other federal courts have ruled that Title VII’s protections apply in such cases, the Seventh Circuit declined to offer guidance on the issue. (Per the Court, “the answer to this question is immaterial to [the manager’s] case, and so we leave it for another day.”)
Main Takeaways for Employers
- This decision sheds additional light on the limits of Title VII’s protections. Title VII protects against, among other things, discrimination based on one’s ancestry (e.g., race and national origin), but it does not extend to immigration or citizenship status.
- In the Seventh Circuit it’s still unclear whether Title VII guards against “associational” claims of discrimination (i.e., discrimination based on the race or national origin of a person’s spouse or partner).
- Other federal courts have found that Title VII’s coverage extends to “associational” claims of discrimination. (The typical scenario involves an employer allegedly discriminating against an employee due to the employee’s involvement in a bi-racial marriage or relationship.)
- From a “best practices” standpoint, employers in Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois may very well want to “assume” that Title VII protects against discrimination based on the race or national origin of a person’s spouse or partner.
- Even though employers aren’t required to have a reason to fire their at-will employees, have a reason to terminate the employment relationship, and make sure it’s a good one. In this particular case, the bank’s decision to terminate the manager’s employment was due to the fact that the manager walked out of a meeting and refused to meet with the bank’s representatives. This provided the bank with a defensible fact pattern as the case worked its way through the courts.
Reference: Cortezano v. Salin Bank & Trust Co. (7th Circuit, No. 11-1631, May 21, 2012)
For more information, please contact Dana Stutzman, who successfully represented the bank in this case, at dstutzman@wp.hallrender.com or your regular Hall Render attorney.
