The Laconic Law Blog

During a labor and employment law seminar last week, I heard commentary on the use by employers of services to handle unemployment hearings or EEOC position statements.  Although these services are very helpful for many employers, there is one substantial risk that arises in doing so.  In many cases, the prepaid services do not devote sufficient attention to stating the true and complete reason for the employee’s termination.  This can lead to admissions being made that will be used against the employer in subsequent EEOC proceedings and end up being devastating.

(more…)

In an update on our earlier post on the “Reverend” discrimination case, Andrews v. Virginia Union University, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the University’s motion for summary judgment as to almost all of Rev. Andrews’ claims, allowing them to proceed to trial.  The Court’s memorandum opinion is here.

(more…)

A federal jury in the Eastern District of Virginia has awarded plaintiff Worldwide Network Services, LLC $15 million in a lawsuit against DynCorp International.  The award included $5 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.  DynCorp prevailed on one counterclaim, recovering $175,000.  Press coverage of the verdict can be found here and here.

(more…)

Three recent decisions by the Courts of Appeals offer the opportunity to discuss discrimination or retaliation based on a person’s association with another person.  The first is Holcomb v. Iona College, No. 06-3815 (2d Cir. 2008).  The opinion can be found here.  The second is Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 07-5040 (6th Cir. 2008).  The opinion can be found here.  The third is Trujillo v. Pacificorp, No. 06-8074 (10th Cir. 2008).  The opinion can be found here.  While the Trujillo decision applies the express associational discrimination provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the other two decisions interpret Title VII to include such protection in the absence of an express provision.

(more…)

IL — Chicago woman awarded $1.7 by U.S. Magistrate Judge in age and sex discrimination suit.  Her employer allegedly pulled her hair back and asked the 72-year old woman if she had had a face lift before terminating her employment.  The district court had previously denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment.  A copy of the opinion is here.

A review of the court’s docket shows that the judgment is actually a default judgment entered by the court.  Apparently the employer had trouble maintaining legal counsel.

The U.S. House approved the Senate version of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 today in a 414-1 vote.  According to PointofLaw.com, the bill is expected to be signed by the President.

UPDATE:  President Bush signed the GINA on May 21, 2008.

(more…)

In EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., the Fourth Circuit overturned an award of summary judgment in a Title VII religious harassment suit and sent the case back to the district court for trial.  The case involved allegations that the plaintiff was subjected to repeated instances of harassment because he was a Muslim.  Judge Wilkinson wrote, in reversing the district court’s summary judgment, that “[i]n the wake of September 11th, some Muslim Americans, completely innocent of any wrongdoing, became targets of gross misapprehensions and overbroad assumptions about their religious beliefs  but the event that shook the foundations of our buildings did not shake the premise of our founding — that here in America there is no heretical faith.”

(more…)

According to statistics released today, employment discrimination charge filings with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rose 7% overall in 2007.  All categories showed double-digit percentage increases in the number of filings except for sex/gender claims, which only increased 7%.  The EEOC also recovered $345 million for charging parties in 2007, up from $274 million in 2006.

(more…)

Two young women are claiming that Southwest Airlines discriminated against them because they are too attractive.  Wiz Bang Blog has the story, along with video here.  Hat tip to Overlawyered.

You can’t make this stuff up.  Does anyone think that these kind of allegations cheapen real allegations of discrimination?

In an opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court found that an intake form and affidavit that requested the EEOC to take action on behalf of the complainant constituted a “charge” of discrimination under the EEOC’s regulations.  The case is Federal Express v. Holowicki (the opinion can be read here:  FedEx v. Holowecki).

(more…)

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision today in Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (a copy of the opinion is here:  Sprint/United v. Mendelsohn).  The opinion leaves many questions about the admissiblity of so-called “me-too” evidence unanswered.

(more…)

The Washington Post reports today that “a Republican state senator from Fairfax County [Virginia] has introduced a proposal that would allow a boss to fire employees who don’t speak English in the workplace, which would make them ineligible for unemployment benefits.”  The bill was introduced ostensibly to protect employers from increased unemployment tax assessments in such cases.  Even if the measure passes, the decision to terminate the employee would still have to pass muster with the EEOC (if challenged).   The EEOC takes the position that a blanket English-only rule is discriminatory.

(more…)

On January 2, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed an award of $125,000 in punitive damages against an employer to each of eight plaintiffs for racial discrimination despite the plaintiffs being awarded $0 in compensatory damages.  The district judge added a $1 nominal damage award to the judgment.  Here is a copy of the opinion.

(more…)

In KP v. Vienna Wolftrap Hotel, 1:07-cv-00625 (E.D.Va. 11/30/2007), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Cacheris, J.) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s age discrimination claim based on the statute of limitations. 

(more…)

The EEOC released a fact sheet today on employment tests and selection procedures.  It “provides technical assistance on some common issues relating to the federal anti-discrimination laws and the use of tests and other selection procedures in the employment process” and lists a number of “employer best practices” recommended by the EEOC.  The fact sheet also sets out several cases filed by the EEOC as illustrative of their position on screening practices.

(more…)