By Vijay Malik.  Mr. Malik is a law student at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Meyers v. Toojay’s Mgmt. Corp., joined two other circuits in holding that private employers have the right to deny employment to applicants on the basis of their filing for bankruptcy.

In January 2008, Eric Myers filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in North Carolina, ultimately leading to a discharge of his debts, and subsequently moved to Florida seeking a fresh start as a supervisor at a Starbuck’s coffeehouse.  During his employment with Starbucks, Myers responded to an advertisement for a management position with a local TooJay’s Gourment Deli restaurant.  Myers interviewed with the regional manager of TooJay’s and participated in a two-day on-the-job evaluation.  During this time, he completed several standard personnel forms, including a confidentiality agreement and authorization of release of personal information for a background check, which allowed TooJay’s to “conduct a comprehensive review” including a review of Myers’ “credit history and reports.”

Myers gave Starbucks two weeks notice after he mistakenly believed TooJay’s hired him.  On the very day he gave notice, however, he received a letter from TooJay’s informing him “that we find it necessary to rescind our previous offer of employment.  The decision was based in whole or in part, on the information provided us in a Consumer Report.”  Upon contacting the company’s human resources department, Myers was notified that the reason he was not hired was that he has filed for bankruptcy, and it was against company policy to hire people who had done so.

Myers filed suit arguing that TooJay’s had discriminated against him because of his bankruptcy filing, violating 11 U.S.C. § 525(b), by refusing to hire him because he filed for bankruptcy and, in the alternative, terminated his employment after he was hired because he filed for bankruptcy.  The wrongful termination claim was sent to the jury, who held that he never became an employee of TooJay’s.

The Bankruptcy Code prohibits employers from engaging in certain actions against those who have filed for bankruptcy.

Section 525(a) provides:

“[A] governmental unit may not . . . deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated . . . .”

Section 525(b) provides:

“No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt . . . .”

Notably, 525(a) prohibits government employers from both denying and terminating employment because of a bankruptcy filing while 525(b) prohibits private employers from terminating employment because of a bankruptcy filing.

The court held Myers did not have a refusal to hire claim because TooJay’s was a private employer, not a governmental unit.  The court found the district court’s reasoning persuasive:

“A comparison of the words used in subsections (a) and (b) demonstrates that subsection (a) prohibits government employers from ‘deny[ing] employment to’ a person because of his or [her] bankrupt status, whereas subsection (b) does not contain such a prohibition for private employers. Rather, the private sector is prohibited only from discriminating against those persons who are already employees. In other words, Congress intentionally omitted any mention of denial of employment from subsection (b), but specifically provided that denial of employment was actionable in subsection (a). Thus, by its plain language, the statute does not provide a cause of action against private employers for persons who are denied employment due to their bankrupt status. “Where Congress has carefully employed a term in one place but excluded it in another, it should not be implied where excluded.”

The court noted its holding is consistent with other federal courts.  See In re Burnett, ___ F.3d ___, No. 10-20250, 2011 WL 754152, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 4, 2011); Rea v. Federated Investors, 627 F.3d 937, 940–41 (3d Cir. 2010); Burnett v. Stewart Title, Inc., 431 B.R. 894, 901 (S.D. Tex. 2010); Fiorani v. CACI, 192 B.R. 401, 407 (E.D. Va. 1996); Pastore v. Medford Sav. Bank, 186 B.R. 553, 555 (D. Mass. 1995); In re Stinson, 285 B.R. 239, 250 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2002); In re Madison Madison Int’l of Ill., 77 B.R. 678, 682 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1987).

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

May 31, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Application of Taggart to lien avoidance. When the Chapter 13 confirmed plan bifurcated the secured creditor’s claim and the secured portion had been paid in full with interest, the completion of payments voided any lien, and the creditor violated the discharge injunction by commencing foreclosure. The Panel found the plan’s language, although “inartful,”...
October 6, 2019
By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Topeka, KS) Click here for Part One Click here for Part Two What needs to be in a plan filed in a case under the SBRA? Start with the statute…1 A. Contents of Plan2 Comparison of “Contents . . . It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is...
April 18, 2021
By Herbert L. Beskin, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Western District of Virginia (Charlottesville) If you’re looking for a well-written and clear appellate opinion about a much-litigated topic, with a bit of ancient mythology thrown in for good measure, this HUD’s for you. The case is Wood v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (In re Larry and...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
A reverse mortgage, having fallen due as a result of the death of the borrower, is not protected from modification by the borrower’s heirs by virtue of § 1322(c)(2). (Halfenger) In re Sandoval, 2022 WL 982182 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Juan Sandoval filed Chapter 13 and proposed a plan which dealt with his principal asset, a...
April 5, 2020
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) During the free Academy webinar The CARES Act – Impacts on Chapter 13 on April 2, 2020, the panel – Judge Wm. Houston Brown (Retired), Amanda DeBerry and I – referred to the importance of detailing the reasons for modifications or suspensions to be related to financial hardship stemming...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
November 20, 2022
A golf cart is a motor vehicle and may be exempted by a Chapter 7 debtor under state law. (Loyd) In re Smith, 2022 WL 3023209 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. July 28, 2022) Case Summary Bobby Smith filed a Chapter 7 petition and listed his golf cart as an exempt asset under Oklahoma law because it was a “motor vehicle.” The...
January 21, 2019
By Jan M. Sensenich, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Vermont As we reach the end of the first month of the partial government shutdown, with no end in sight, 800,000 federal workers have started missing their paychecks. As the shutdown continues, Chapter 13 trustees are weighing how best to address the inevitable question from federal government employee...
Academy Circle Logo Final
Recently, the Emeritus Trustees (“ETC”) commented on “How to Manage Incompetent, Unprepared, and Negligent Bankruptcy Counsel”. We now turn to ETC to share their collective wisdom when addressing the issues raised by incompetent, unprepared and unreasonable creditor counsel. CREDITOR ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION ISSUES Several ETC Trustees list the following as problematical during their tenure. Attorney claims lack of authority from creditor...
February 14, 2021
By Jan Sensenich, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of Vermont I think it was in junior high school when I first started wearing glasses. I remember not liking the idea of having to wear glasses. I thought I could see just fine. As far as I knew, I was seeing what I needed to see. But I also...
January 26, 2020
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) When a case converts from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 prior to the confirmation of a plan, the Chapter 13 Trustee is not permitted to divert funds from the debtor to the debtor’s attorney. In re Lettie, 597 B.R. 637 (Bankr. E.D Wis. 2019)...