In a Title VII discrimination case, there are several hurdles in front of a plaintiff. The law requires that the employee show that she suffered discrimination and that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons offered by the employer were really just pretexts for discrimination. In the case of one middle Tennessee professor, her employer was able to persuade the court that the professor’s case came up short in multiple areas required by the law.
An old fable tells the story of a cat and a monkey. The monkey convinces the cat to fetch some chestnuts from the embers of a recently extinguished fire. The cat gets the nuts and gives them to the monkey, burning its paw in the process. A maid interrupts their activity, resulting in the cat getting nothing but a burned paw for its troubles. This fable is the origin of a phrase – “cat’s paw” – that means being the tool of another person. In employment law, the “cat’s paw” theory of liability is something that can hold an employer liable even when the employer has been duped by one of its supervisory or managerial employees.
A recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case addressed the question of whether the “cat’s paw” theory of liability can apply in a Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation case. The plaintiff was a woman who worked for a company that provided “cost containment” services for insurance companies. The employee had depression, anxiety, and PTSD issues. Due to a bout of acute mental health problems, the employee took an unplanned period of FMLA leave in early 2012. Sometime after this, the company demoted her from a team lead position to an analyst role.
A major national staffing services company could end up in legal hot water regarding the way it handled its time-keeping practices for some of its remote workers. A class of “virtual call center” employees launched a collective action accusing the company of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them for all of the time they worked. In an important recent step in the case, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan declared the arbitration clause in the workers’ contracts to be invalid and unenforceable, short-circuiting the company’s efforts to obtain a dismissal and a court order compelling binding arbitration of the case.
A nursing facility’s activities director got good news from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals when that court revived his Family and Medical Leave Act lawsuit, concluding that his retaliation claim was sufficient to escape summary judgment. Of larger significance, the 11th Circuit declared for the first time what the proper method was for measuring temporal proximity in circumstantial FMLA retaliation claims, establishing that the proper measure was the gap between the last day of FMLA leave and the date of the adverse employment action.
Late last summer, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of an employer after an employment candidate accused the company of race discrimination by virtue of its enforcement of its employee grooming policies. This so-called “dreadlock decision” has led to many discussions and commentaries since its release, both about what “race” means as well as the degree of control employers should have over their employees’ appearance. For employers and employees in Georgia, it is useful to take note of exactly how far the law allows an employer to go in mandating an employee’s choice of hairstyle.
In an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act case, there are various potential avenues to success for an employer. One way an employer can blunt an employee’s case is by establishing that the employee did not follow company policy for reporting his FMLA absences. That’s what happened to one waffle-packaging machine operator in Tennessee, and the employer’s evidence proved to be enough to allow it to obtain summary judgment on the employee’s FMLA claims.
While much has been reported in the news recently in terms of bathrooms and civil rights, an Ohio public health agency employee’s Title VII lawsuit was a very different kind of bathroom case. The employee, a supervisory-level environmental health and sanitation worker, alleged that she suffered from workplace retaliation after informing office supervisors about an IT worker’s alleged misuse of a video camera. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals revived that employee’s case recently, deciding that the employee’s evidence created a possible conclusion that she suffered harm as a result of reporting the male co-worker’s alleged acts of sexual impropriety.
One of the interesting byproducts of living in the 21st-century information age is the speed at which information transmits. In this age of smartphones, the world-wide web, and social media, news really does travel fast. Whether you are an LGBT person in the workforce or you’re an employer, chances are you either have read or will soon be reading about the April 4 Title VII decision issued by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc. You’ll likely see headlines trumpeting that the decision has “decided” the issue of Title VII and whether or not it bars sexual orientation discrimination. While that’s true in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, if you’re working or doing business in Georgia, the reality is a bit different.
Sometimes the alleged acts of discrimination that go on within a workplace may be extensive and extreme. Even when that level of alleged racism is going on at work, it is still important to follow all of the necessary steps to pursue your case carefully and thoroughly to avoid procedural issues that might trip up your action. Three workers at a Georgia farm each cleared important hurdles in their Title VII race discrimination lawsuits against their employer when a federal judge recently denied the employer’s request (in each case) to grant it summary judgment on the employees’ Title VII claims.
In the latest ruling of what has become a nationally watched case, an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has upheld a trial court’s decision to throw out a Georgia security guard’s Title VII claim based upon her sexual orientation. The ruling is worth noting by Georgia employers and employees for a number of reasons. First, the decision announced the panel’s refusal to expand the parameters of Title VII to include an explicit prohibition against employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. Second, the panel re-affirmed the avenue available to some employees in this security guard’s position: pursuing a claim of discrimination based upon failure to conform to gender stereotypes.