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.

 

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

 

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).

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.

 

http://hr.cch.com/ELD/WagnerCampbell030415.pdf

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/​

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.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-14-15.cfm

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)