Blog Topic

Daily Developments in EEO Law

Ellis v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 07-2811 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2008); Larson v. Winter, No. 07-5196 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 29, 2008)
April 30, 2008

An attack on Brown's anti-fraternization policy on racial grounds falls flat in the Seventh Circuit, while the D.C. Circuit rings an end to a lawsuit challenging a putative "quota" system for chaplains in the U.S. Navy.

Attachments:
Ellisv.UPS.pdf

Reeves v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No 07-10270 (11th Cir. Apr. 28, 2008)
April 28, 2008

Wanting to do something about that crude jerk in the carrel next to yours, day-in and day-out listening to sludge on the radio and spitting out obscenities? The Eleventh Circuit may have an answer for you.

Beyer v. County of Nassau, No. 06-4930 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2008); Webb-Edwards v. Orange County Sheriff, No. 07-12599 (11th Cir. Apr. 22, 2008)
April 24, 2008

Two circuits -- reviewing cases that, coincidently, both involve women detectives -- take different stances on whether denial of a transfer constitutes an "adverse employment action" chargable under Title VII. The Second Circuit essentially trusts the employees' view of the prestige and importance of their own jobs. The Eleventh Circuit, meanwhile, takes a markedly paternalistic view of what's best for the employee.

Hinds vs. Sprint/United Management Co., No. 07-3027 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2008); Milligan-Hitt vs. Board of Trustees, No. 06-8086 (10th Cir. Apr. 21, 2008)
April 23, 2008

Fresh from the Tenth Circuit: A Sprint RIF age-discrimination (and retaliation) case tanks, while two public school administrators who won a $160,515 civil rights jury verdict hit the rocky shoals of qualified immunity and municipal liability.

Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., No. 07-2065 (8th Cir. Apr. 18, 2008)
April 18, 2008

If it is true that judges in employment discirimination cases should not function as "super-personnel boards," judging the acceptability of an employer's reasons/excuses for its decisions, it is equally true that judges are not duly-constituted petit juries empowered to decide whether an employer's actions are "materially adverse." Where facts are contested, Congress assigned that task to a sworn panel of citizen-civilians.

United Steelworkers v. Rohm & Haas Co, No. 06-4346 (3d Cir. Apr. 14, 2008)
April 15, 2008

In advance of a U.S. Supreme Court decision next term in 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, a Title VII case about mandatory arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, here comes a fresh decision that anticipates the same issue under a different statute: arbitration of an ERISA claim through a CBA. The twist in this case was that it was the employer who sought to avoid arbitration.

Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Assn. v. County of Albany, No. 06-0086 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2008)
April 10, 2008

The Second Circuit may finally be finished with this attoneys' fee/lodestar case, one year (and two amendments) after the original panel decision was released.

Wilkerson v. New Media Technology Charter School, No. 07-1305 (3d Cir. Apr. 9, 2008)
April 09, 2008

Sometimes, religious discrimination cases are not about Sabbatarians or dress codes, but about ordinary rituals and ceremonies around the workplace that clash with an individual's beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses might object to forced attendance at birthday parties, while some Jews or Muslims make take umbridge at workplace celebrations of Halloween or St. Valentine's Day.

Lugo-Velazquez v. Stiefel Laboratories, No. 07-2138 (1st Cir. Apr. 4, 2008); Diaz v. Eagle Produce, No. 06-15878 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2008)
April 06, 2008

Two end-of-the-week oddities: the First Circuit upholds a benefit plan that excludes a group defined by national origin; the Ninth Circuit reverses summary judgment in an unusual case where the employer fails even to meet its burden of production under Burdine.

Tademy v. Union Pacific Corp., No. 06-4073 (10th Cir. Apr. 1, 2008); Holcomb v. Iona College, No. 06-3815 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2008)
April 01, 2008

Senator Barack Obama offers America that "working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds." Today's cases, both reversals of summary judgment in race discrimination cases, show that some of our citizens will probably take a pass on that offer.

Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 07-5040 (6th Cir. Mar. 31, 2008); EEOC v. Sunbelt Rentals, No. 07-1123 (4th Cir. Mar. 31, 2008)
April 01, 2008

Two more plaintiffs' victories: the Sixth Circuit recognizes a direct cause of action under Title VII for friends and family members of persons engaged in protected activity, while the Fourth Circuit sends an EEOC religious harassment case back for trial.

Brady v. Livingood, No. 06-5362 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 28, 2008)
March 31, 2008

Despite unpromising facts and a bottom-line win for the defendant, this case states an important and enduring lesson for employees seeking to avoid summary judgment . . . if the other eleven U.S. courts of appeals are paying attention: "that the question whether the employee made out a [McDonnell Douglas] prima facie case is almost always irrelevant."