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.

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321 (U.S. May 27, 2008); CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431 (U.S. May 27, 2008)
May 27, 2008

The plaintiffs' bar has done alright for itself so far this term in the Supreme Court: a positive decision in Federal Express Corporation v. Paul Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2008), heading off the worst in Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2008). And now we have two more pro-employee decisions today.

Attachments:
Humphries.pdf
Gomez-Perez.pdf

Van Horn v. Best Buy Stores, No. 07-2677 (8th Cir. May 23, 2008); Nance v. Goodyear Tire Co., No. 06-6563 (6th Cir. May 23, 2008)
May 24, 2008

The Eighth Circuit stumbles in reading its own case law, while the Sixth Circuit carries on a serious debate about the issue preclusive effect of a labor arbitration in an Americans With Disabilities Act case.

Filar v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 07-1275 (7th Cir. May 22, 2008)
May 22, 2008

A Seventh Circuit panel demonstrates why the "same actor" inference probably has no place at the summary judgment stage, reversing summary judgment in an ADEA demotion case involving a 69-year-old bilingual teacher.

Attachments:
Filarv.BdofEd.pdf

American Council for the Blind v. Paulson, No. 07-5063 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2008)
May 21, 2008

The latest disability accommodation case to hit the news -- the U.S. currency case from the D.C. Circuit -- draws incredulity and derision from the smart set. But it has a good deal to say to employers facing lower-profile failures to accommodate their employees.

Batiste-Davis v. Lincare, No. 06-4206 (8th Cir. May 19, 2008)
May 19, 2008

Even though Title VII prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against someone for filing a employment discrimination case in good faith, apparently the rule does not extend to juries, who may consider it as evidence of "motive, intent, preparation or plan" under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) -- at least, in the Eighth Circuit.

Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc., No. 07-5304 (6th Cir. May 16, 2008)
May 16, 2008

Unrepentant harassers leave their employer stuck with a $700,000 judgment in Nashville, plus the legal bill for one of the least effectual defenses in recent memory.

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, No. 07-1490 (8th Cir. May 14, 2008)
May 14, 2008

There is a split in the circuits on the enduring legacy of Price Waterhouse: do employees have to prove the existence of a biased motivating factor by direct evidence in a so-called mixed-motive case? The Fifth Circuit has said "no," but the Eighth Circuit today says "yes," tossing a jury verdict for the plaintiff and ordering a revised instruction for the new trial.

Middlebrooks v. Leavitt, No. 05-1860 (4th Cir. May 6, 2008); Trujillo v. PacifiCorp, No. 06-8074 (10th Cir. May 7, 2008)
May 08, 2008

Pity the poor lawyer-blogger. I've been awash in actual law practice (for the past week, it's been mostly wrestling with a TRO) and things just piled up. Here's my attempt to make good: a nice arcane federal employee case from the Fourth Circuit and a plaintiff's win in an ADA "association" discrimination case from the Tenth Circuit.

Miller v. American Airlines, No. 07-1518 (7th Cir. May 5, 2008)
May 05, 2008

Here's a case of Eisenhower-era flight engineers, made obsolete in the Reagan-era, defeated by Coolidge-era labor legislation.

Attachments:
Millerv.AmericanAirlines.pdf