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.

http://hr.cch.com/ELD/HowardPritzker.pdf

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)

Because I focus my practice on employment law and most of my clients are employees, I consult with dozens of people who have been treated horribly at work and many who have been fired.  The law in North Carolina is not favorable for employees so I have to give many people the bad news that they have no legal claim.  The majority listen to me and, while perhaps not happy with the information I give them, understand that there is no legal claim available to them.  However, there are people each week who get mad at me for giving them bad news. They may say nasty things to me during the consultations, send me nasty emails or even go on websites to give nasty reviews or make nasty comments.

Every now and then there is a person who truly appreciates the advice and counsel I have provided. Those people understand that the law in this state is the problem. And sometimes those people provide wonderful feedback like this that helps to make me feel my work for employees is worthwhile:

From: *******
To: *****@theangellawfirm.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:36 PM
Subject: Lesson Learned!

Good Afternoon Mr. Angel,

 

I just wanted to thank you for meeting with me this afternoon and being honest about this case and I'm elated!!! I guess you say, "I 'm just doing my job", well everyone is not as candid and honest as you were this afternoon.  I would rather hear the truth and move forward than waste money on charlatans and  frivolous claims and that was worth whatever I had to spend for your services. I wish I would have  gone to you first ,  well lesson learned.  Thanks again and feel free to post my comment on your blog!​

Supreme Court Invalidates Recent NLRB Social Media Cases

On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court concluded that three of President Obama’s appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made in January 2012, without Senate confirmation, were unconstitutional. As a result, more than 700 decisions from the NLRB from January 4, 2012 through July 31, 2013 are now invalid. The NLRB must now reconsider many decisions that affect both union and non-union workers. The decisions include cases where the NLRB limited the rights of employers in the workplace. The most impactful decisions the NLRB can expect to reconsider are its cases focused on social media, and the employer’s limitation to regulate employees’ social media post.

In 2008, Anthony Booth and Jerry Brown filed charges against the County and the Union with the EEOC and the Florida Commission of Human Rights.  The charges stated issues with the County and Union’s response to past internal complaints.  In 2007, Booth named Brown as a witness in a grievance he filed against the supervisor of station 14.  As a result of the grievance, the plaintiffs and supportive coworkers were transferred to different stations.  The plaintiffs allege that the harassment in their workplace was a direct result of the charges filed with the EEOC and FLHR, and that the County and Union condoned it.  

After the charges were filed, Booth and Brown began to be harassed by their coworkers.  Memos,  along with newspaper articles, naming both Booth and Brown were being placed all around the station.  The memo gave a description of the discrimination charges filed by the plaintiffs and discussed the possibility of Union prices increasing due to the charges.  The plaintiffs began to complain that they felt unsafe around their coworkers and in their work environment.  Due to these complaints, the County required the men to complete fitness-for-duty examinations before being allowed to continue working. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of the County, and ordered that judgment be entered against the County.  While affirming the district court’s entry of judgment against the Union, the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the Union retaliated against the plaintiffs by mentioning their names in the memos.  The Eleventh Circuit held that the examinations ordered by the County were sufficient proof to support the Title VII retaliation claim.  Booth v. Pasco Cnty., Fla., 12-14194, 2014 WL 3031177 (11th Cir. July 3, 2014).

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201213389.pdf

New Accommodations for Pregnant Employees

On July 14, 2014, the EEOC issued the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination, which intends to provide guidance regarding the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).  Under the PDA, “an employer cannot discriminate against and employee on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions must be treated the same as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”  42 U.S.C. § 12101.  By issuing this new guidance, the EEOC hopes to reduce the number or pregnancy discrimination claims by requiring employers to offer reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers.

Executive Order Expands Protections to LGBT Federal Employees

On July 21, 2014, President Obama expanded anti-discrimination protections to federal employees and federal contractors through an executive order that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  Executive order 13672, which is enforced by the EEOC, has increased the protections offered for federal LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) workers.  The EEOC relies on several circuit court decisions in regards to transgender discrimination.  In Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that under Title VII, “an employer may not take gender into account in making an employment decision.”  Prince Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 239 (1989).