Blog Topic

Daily Developments in EEO Law

A running commentary (since 2004) on the follies and fortunes of employment discrimination law in the federal courts of appeal - with occasional detours, at the author's discretion.

Leister v. Dovetail, Inc., No. 07-2242 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2008)
October 23, 2008

Lightning strikes twice! For the second day in a row, Judge Richard Posner writes a decision affirming a judgment for an ERISA participant, and this time remands the plaintiff back for more relief on her cross-appeal. (And look for my editorial at the end of the post.)

Orth v. Wisconsin State Employees Union, Council 24, No. 07-2778 (7th Cir. Oct. 22, 2008)
October 22, 2008

To steal from the elderly, you don't have to lurk around the local check-cashing store with a lead pipe. In this Seventh Circuit ERISA case, a union and employer pulled a fast one on retirees by stealthily raising their contributions to their own medical benefits. The retirees fight back and win!

Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp., No. 07-6414 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 2008)
October 21, 2008

An ADEA disparate impact claim comes to grief in the Sixth Circuit.

Amrhein v. Health Care Service Corp., No. 07-1460 (7th Cir. Oct. 20, 2008)
October 20, 2008

A Seventh Circuit panel splits over whether an employee presented a circumstantial case of Title VII retaliation by evidence that a decision-maker uttered, fewer than two weeks before the employee's termination, that "if [the plaintiff] wanted to choose all of [her] days [off], then [she] should not have complained [about discrimination]in the first place," and that the plaintiff had "open[ed] up a can of worms." The majority holds that the evidence falls short, while the dissent would find at least a mixed-motive case presented by this record.

Chaudhry v. Nucor Steel, No. 07-3729 (7th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008)
October 16, 2008

The Seventh Circuit -- construing the detested Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S. Ct. 2162 (2007) -- draws a useful distinction between discrete acts, such as the denial of a raise, and an ongoing pattern of withholding business opportunities that could lead to a raise. The panel holds that the latter violation here should have survived a motion to dismiss.

Kellogg v. Energy Safety Services Inc., No. 07-8072 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2008)
October 15, 2008

The ADA Amendments Act, recently enacted to liberalize the definition of "disability," comes too late for Ireane Kellogg. The Tenth Circuit -- in a 2-1 decision -- vacates a jury verdict for the plaintiff, holding that the jury was misinstructed that driving is a "major life activity."

Tate v. Executive Management Services, Inc., No. 07-2575 (7th Cir. Oct. 10, 2008)
October 10, 2008

The Seventh Circuit grants judgment as matter of law against a plaintiff from an employer's appeal of a Title VII retaliation jury verdict. The panel ducks the debate about whether resisting a supervisor's sexual predation is a "protected activity," holding instead on the trial record that the employee didn't consider the behavior as unlawful "sex harassment."

Enica v. Principi, No. 06-2187 (1st Cir. Oct. 6, 2008)
October 07, 2008

The First Circuit reminds us in this federal employee case that under the Rehabilitation Act (as well as the ADA), good intentions and lack of animus are not enough when it comes to reasonable accommodations. Promising to make accommodations is not the same as carrying through.

EEOC v. Lee's Log Cabin, Inc., No. 06-3278 (7th Cir. Oct. 6, 2008)
October 06, 2008

With any luck, the recently-enacted ADA Amendments Act of 2008 -- with a mandate to construe the definition of disability "in favor of broad coverage" -- will put an end to calamities such as inflicted in this Seventh Circuit decision, where the panel majority affirms dismissal of an ADA case because the EEOC plead the wrong kind of disability: HIV infection instead of AIDS.

Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools, No. 07-11196 (11th Cir. Sept. 30, 2008)
September 30, 2008

There's been a dry spell in the circuits in the EEO field the past couple of weeks. This FMLA case impressed, though, as presenting a nice legal issue of whether "indifference" to an employee's use of leave time constitutes a legitimate reason for termination -- resulting in a rare win for an employee in the Eleventh Circuit.