Robin Shea at Constangy has a great article with graphs and charts for the EEOC FY 2015.
http://bit.ly/1SaRg3H
Employment law blog. Information on sexual harassment, racial harassment, ADA Americans with Disabilities, FMLA family and medical leave, discrimination, wrongful firing, wrongful termination, retaliation, wage and hour, unemployment, age discrimination. Recent developments in employment law.
Saturday, November 21, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Racists Comments Can Be Protected Activity. What?
In a recent decision from the National Labor Relations Board Division of Judges, racist comments are protected so long as the comments are not imminent threats. On June 5, 2015, Administrative Law Judge, Randazzo, ruled that Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (hereinafter “Respondent”) violated the National Labor Relations Act by terminating an employee for making racist comments.
On January 7, 2012, the Respondent participated in a lockout of the employees. Among those employees was Anthony Runion, a Caucasian male. During the course of the lockout, the Respondent brought in replacement workers, which included several African Americans. As the replacement workers were entering the main gate, Runion began to make several racist comments about smelling “KFC fried chicken” and “watermelon.” On March 1, 2012, the Respondent discharged Runion alleging that Runion’s racist comments violated the Respondent’s harassment policy.
The ALJ concluded that although Runion’s remarks were racist, offensive, and clearly inappropriate, the Respondent violated the NLRA when it fired Runion for remarks that were used in the context of a strike. Further, any comments made by Runion while on the picket line are protected conduct so long as the comments do not constitute a threat.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Social Anxiety Disorder Is ADA Disability
Christina
Jacobs
worked as a deputy clerk at a courthouse in New Hanover County, North
Carolina.
Jacobs was assigned to provide customer service at the courthouse front
counter. After suffering from several panic attacks and extreme stress
from her
position at the front counter, Jacobs went to one of the supervisors to
request
a role that involved less direct interpersonal interaction. The
supervisor
instructed Jacobs to seek medical attention. Once the stress and panic
attacks
began to increase, Jacobs submitted a second request for an
accommodation. Jacobs was terminated following the second request. The
United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
determined that social anxiety disorder qualifies as a disability
because it hinders
a person’s ability to interact with others. The court
explained that the ADA imposes a good-faith duty upon employers, to
engage with
their employees, to identify a reasonable accommodation when one is
requested.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
Sexual harassment in the workplace is a common occurrence. There are women, and some men, who suffer from repeated sexual harassment. According to The Restaurant Opportunities Center United, 70 percent
of female food service workers are victims of sexual harassment from their
bosses. Moreover, 90 percent of women have experienced sexual harassment from
customers. Being placed is a hostile work environment is never easy to handle.
Reporting this type of harassment should always be a priority.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
U.S. Supreme Court Case - Potential Victory for Pregnant Employees
On March 25, 2015 the United States Supreme Court remanded a
pregnancy discrimination case back to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit Court. Petitioner Young was a part-time driver for respondent
United Parcel Service (UPS). Young became pregnant in 2006 after suffering from
several miscarriages. Young was advised to not lift more than twenty pounds
during her pregnancy. However, as a part-time driver for UPS, Young was
required to lift parcels weighing up to seventy pounds. Young requested a
light-duty job accommodation, but UPS denied the request. Young filed a suit
alleging the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
The District Court granted UPS summary judgment, concluding,
that Young could not make out a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas. The Fourth Circuit
affirmed. The US Supreme Court concluded that that Young created a genuine
dispute as to where UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some
employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers. In
reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the second clause of the PDA,
which was determined to be unclear and open to interpretation. The Court had
concerns as to “what other applicants or employees” was initially intended to
mean. Further, Young presented evidence that UPS accommodates most non-pregnant
employees with lifting limitations, yet, refuses to accommodate pregnant
employees. The case was remanded, shifting the burden to UPS to provide a
reason for refusing Young’s accommodation.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Racial Preference of Patient Not a Defense to Discrimination
Plaintiff,
an African-American female, filed a claim against Pals of Pasadena
Hospital alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for intentional racial
discrimination. In August 2013, an elderly Hispanic female was admitted
to the hospital after being mugged by an African-American male. At the
request of patient’s family, the hospital directed Plaintiff that she
could not care for the patient because of Plaintiff’s race. The United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida Tampa Division
ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, and concluded that the hospital
prevented the Plaintiff from performing her job because she is an
African-American. The hospital argued that the Plaintiff was not
prevented to do her job on the basis of any “racial animus or
hostility.” The court refused to accept this argument and explained that
the hospital still discriminated against the Plaintiff based on her
race. Dysart v. Palms of Pasadena Hospital, LP, 2015.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Protection of Religious Beliefs in Workplace
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination
against any individual because of such individual’s religion in the
workplace. Under Title VII, “religion” encompasses all aspects of
religious observance, practice and belief. 42 U.S.C. §2000e(j). An
employer is required to accommodate an employee based on religion unless
the employer can show that it cannot reasonably accommodate the
employee’s practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the
business. For example, Courts have held that an employer’s refusal to
allow an employee to wear a khimar is not discriminatory under Title
VII. A khimar could be safety hazard to other employees because it could
be used to smuggle weapons and contraband, thus placing an undue
hardship on the employer. EEOC v. The Geo Group, 616 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2010).
Monday, March 23, 2015
Disciplinary Action including False Statements was not Adverse Action
Patricia Wagner left her job after receiving a written
reprimand, including false statements, from the sheriff. Wagner sued the
sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging she suffered an adverse employment
action in retaliation of her protected speech. On appeal, The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit concluded that Wagner could not prove
her prima facie case of retaliation. Further, the Eight Circuit explained “a
reprimand is an adverse employment action only when the employer uses it as a
basis for changing the terms or conditions of the employee’s job for the
worse.” Wagner left her job on her own and thus, did not suffer a termination,
cut in pay or benefits, or change in job duties or responsibilities. Wagner v. Campbell, 2015.
Friday, February 6, 2015
ACLU Assists Pregnant Employee (Asheville, North Carolina)
After being employed with Sava
Senior Care’s Brain Center Health and Rehabilitation in Weaverville, NC
for two years, Jamie Cole was unable to return to work due to a
complicated pregnancy. In April 2013 Cole’s doctor recommending that she
no longer do any
lifting. Cole submitted a Reasonable Accommodation Acknowledgement
form, which was denied. Cole was informed that she could not return to
work until there were no restrictions at all. The Federal Pregnancy
Discrimination Act requires that pregnant workers
receive the same treatment as other temporarily disabled workers. Cole
has filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that she was discriminated
against based on her pregnancy. The Americans Civil Liberties Union is
helping Cole with her case pro bono. Along
with Cole’s case, pregnancy discrimination is an important issue in
North Carolina because the state is one of four with no laws of its own
protecting pregnant or breastfeeding employees.
http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2015/01/10/battling-right-work-pregnant-nc/21570149/
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Workplace Harassment Still Major Employee Concern
According to EEOC Chair, Jenny
R. Yang, approximately 30 percent of all charges filed with the EEOC are
based on workplace harassment. To prevent workplace harassment, Yang is
establishing a task force to bring together experts from the employer
community
to identify effective strategies to prevent and remedy workplace
harassment. Yang hopes to deter workplace harassment by making sure
employees are informed of their rights, and by informing employers on
how to best implement and enforce harassment policies.
Legal Counsel of the EEOC expressed that having a policy is
insufficient if it is not communicated understandably to the workforce.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Does any statute of limitations apply?
On January 6, 2015, the D.C.
Circuit held that the six-year statute of limitations for suits against
the United States does not apply to Title VII actions by federal
employees. In February 1995 two federal employees filed an
administrative complaint alleging
“Racial Discrimination against African Americans in the Department of
Commerce.” After complying with EEOC guidelines for over ten years, the
complaint was dismissed on July 16, 2010. On appeal, relying on Supreme
Court precedent, the D.C. Circuit explained
that following the six-year statute of limitations would undermine
Congress’s goal of encouraging employees to resolve their employment
discrimination disputes administratively. The case was remanded for
further proceedings.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Security Guards Entitled to Overtime
On January 8, 2015, the
California Supreme Court concluded that security guards, who spent
on-call hours at construction sites, were entitled to compensation for
all on-call hours. CPS Security Solutions employed security guards to
provide security at construction
worksites. During the weekdays and weekends the guards were required to
reside in a trailer provided by CPS while being on-call for eight
hours. The guards were not compensated for these eight hours. Due to CPS
being in control of the guards’ actions and movement
for eight hours, the state high court determined that compensation was
required.
Mendiola v. CPS Sec. Solutions, Inc., No. S212704, 2015 WL 107082, at *2 (Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)