Earlier this month, we told you that the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case that will require the Court to decide the proper burden of proof in discrimination cases brought by plaintiffs from historically majority communities. Here’s a recent federal appeals decision in a reverse discrimination case.
David Duvall, a white man, was Senior Vice President of Marketing and Communications at Novant Health. For five years, Duvall performed exceptionally in his role, receiving strong performance reviews and gaining national recognition for himself and the marketing program he developed for Novant Health. Despite all that, Duvall was fired, being told only that Novant Health was “going in a different direction.” At that time, Novant was in the middle of a widescale D&I (diversity and inclusion) initiative. When Duvall was terminated, Novant had no record of any documented criticism of Duvall’s performance in his five years at Novant, and the company had no documents explaining the reasons for his termination.
Immediately after firing Duvall, Novant Health elevated two of Duvall’s deputies, a white woman and a black woman, to take over his duties. It then later hired another black woman to permanently replace Duvall.
Believing Novant Health fired him merely to achieve racial and gender diversity—or more specifically, to hit certain diversity “targets”—within its leadership, Duvall sued in federal court. After a week-long trial, during which the jury heard Duvall’s boss offer “shifting, conflicting, and unsubstantiated explanations for Duvall’s termination”, judgment was entered in Duvall’s favor, as follows:
$2,457,527 in back pay;
$332,793 in prejudgment interest;
$1,078,066 in front pay;
$399,105 in attorney’s fees; and,
$15,482.11 in costs, for a total of $4,282,973, plus post-judgment interest.
The jury also awarded $10 million in punitive damages, but that award was vacated on appeal. The rest of the jury’s verdict was upheld. Novant had maintained that Duvall had been terminated for performance issues, but the appellate court stated that there was substantial evidence suggesting that the firing was motivated by his race and sex. Duvall was awarded $154,665 in additional attorney’s fees for his appellate success, for a grand total of $4,437,638.
Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc., 95 F.4th 778 (4th Cir. 2024); op. on atty fees 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183990 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 8, 2024).
What would a respectful workplace do?
Respectful workplaces use properly-executed D&I efforts programs, those that make their workplaces inclusive, and not exclusive. They know that talent comes in a variety of colors, genders, ages, and life experiences, and that repeated studies show that diversity improves the bottom line. The Duvall verdict should not discourage employers from D&I programs.
A respectful workplace makes sure that all hiring, promotion, and disciplinary decisions are based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory, non-retaliatory reasons.
A respectful workplace uses diverse hiring slates to expand the pool of candidates, rather than reduce it.
A respectful workplace deals with employee performance issues in a timely manner that is documented.
A respectful workplace trains its managers on the key concepts of employment law, including consistency, legitimate business reasons, and proper documentation. Want to give your supervisors and managers this vital information in a truly interactive class, taught by subject-matter experts? Managing Within the Law is an essential skills program and a key component of every new manager’s training curriculum. Offered in full-day, half-day, and webinar formats, this course is also an engaging refresher for your experienced managers.
To find out more about our national employment law for managers or to book a workshop, please call 800-458-2778 or email us today! 2025 training dates are now available.
Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.
