Circuit Court Rules No Cause of Action for Discrimination Against Debtors
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.24.11
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has joined the Third and Fifth Circuits in holding that the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 525, does not prohibit a private-sector employer from discriminating in hiring based on an applicant's having filed a bankruptcy petition. See Myers v. TooJay's Mgmt. Corp., No. 10-10774 (11th Cir. May 17, 2011).
Plaintiff Eric Myers filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2008, and he received a discharge of his debts. Shortly thereafter, Myers applied for employment as a manager at TooJay's Restaurant. Myers interviewed for the position and completed a two-day on-the-job evaluation. He then resigned from his then-current employment with Starbucks, only to be informed by TooJay's that he would not be offered employment because TooJay's had discovered that he had filed for bankruptcy.
Myers sued TooJay's, contending that he had been hired for the position and then unlawfully terminated from employment because of his bankruptcy filing. He also claimed that TooJay's was prohibited from refusing to hire him based solely upon bankruptcy.
In a technical application of statutory construction of the Bankruptcy Code, the Eleventh Circuit held that Congress intended that government employers could not discriminate on the basis of a bankruptcy against employees, or against candidates for employment, but that the prohibition on discrimination in hiring did not apply to private employers. The court confirmed that private-sector employers are prohibited from discriminating against current employees as a result of a bankruptcy. The Eleventh Circuit, however, upheld the jury's finding that TooJay's had not yet hired Myers.
While there are currently no federal Courts of Appeals that have issued decisions contrary to the Eleventh Circuit's holding, there is no certainty that it will be applied elsewhere. Also, the court's decision makes no mention of, and presumably would not affect, state laws on the subject. Lastly, employers should be wary of adopting a policy of disqualifying candidates for having filed for bankruptcy, because such a policy would create the potential for a disparate impact claim, particularly in light of the EEOC's recent focus on potential sources of systemic discrimination.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.21.25
On November 7, 2025, in Thornton v. National Academy of Sciences, No. 25-cv-2155, 2025 WL 3123732 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 2025), the District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation complaint on the basis that the plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired after blowing the whistle on purported illegally discriminatory use of federal funding was not sufficient to support his FCA claim. This case appears to be one of the first filed, and subsequently dismissed, following Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s announcement of the creation of the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative on May 19, 2025, which “strongly encourages” private individuals to file lawsuits under the FCA relating to purportedly discriminatory and illegal use of federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in violation of Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025). In this case, the court dismissed the FCA retaliation claim and rejected the argument that an organization could violate the FCA merely by “engaging in discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study.” The analysis in Thornton could be a sign of how forthcoming arguments of retaliation based on reporting allegedly fraudulent DEI activity will be analyzed in the future.
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.20.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.19.25
