Hidden codes can lead to possible liability

Employers must be prepared to defend their personnel practices and procedures, especially when discrimination is alleged. It’s hard to hide actual practices once litigation begins, so it’s important to be transparent. A recent case from the U. S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Arkansas employers) illustrates how trying to skirt transparency can lead to potential liability.

Facts

Jerry Cook has mental and physical impairments that make it difficult for him to communicate with others, process complex information, and lift heavy objects. At some time before the incident leading to his lawsuit, he had worked for George's, Inc., a producer of poultry and other food products. He was able to do his job with reasonable accommodations for his mental and physical limitations.

Cook stopped working at George's at some point before October 2015. Based on the term of employment, George's created an HR file on him. The file assigned him the code "333," which made him "not eligible for rehire” because of a known or perceived medical condition.

Around October 2015, Cook applied to be rehired by George's. Because of the code "333" in his file, company management instructed the HR team they could interview Cook but "not hire [him] no matter what."

On the day of the interview, Cook didn’t show up. He came to George's the next day, however, and asked to reschedule the appointment. Based on instruction from management, the HR team refused to reschedule the interview despite having rescheduled for other applicants who missed their time slots.