Blog Topic

Daily Developments in EEO Law

Venetian Casino Resort LLC v. EEOC, No. 06-5361 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2008); Niswander v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 07-3738 (6th Cir. June 24, 2008)
June 27, 2008

I am refreshed by two weeks in Newfoundland, and ready to return to my beat. This past week, we have two cases addressing the confidentiality of employer documents: a retaliation action in the Sixth Circuit, where the asserted protected activity was a class member turning over client information to a class action attorney engaged in civil discovery; and the D.C. Circuit decision ordering entry of an injunction against the EEOC to prevent the release of data to charging parties.

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, No. 06-1037 (U.S. June 19, 2008); Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505 (U.S. June 19, 2008)
June 21, 2008

I turned off the blog while I was away from the office, but could not resist a word or two about the Supreme Court's recent decisions, which carry on the continuing dialog of what kind of statute the ADEA is meant to be.

EEOC v. Allstate Insurance Company, No. 07-1559 (8th Cir. June 10, 2008)
June 10, 2008

The last of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions of the term concerning employment law, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab, which will decide what role the "reasonable factors other than age" defense plays in an ADEA disparate impact case. (I co-authored the civil-rights organizations' amicus brief in this case.) The Eighth Circuit, in the meanwhile, addresses another open issue in this field: what kinds of "employment practices" are open to challenge as having a disparate age impact. The happy surprise here is that the EEOC wins this time out.

Hervey v. City of Koochiching, No. 06-3891 (8th Cir. June 9, 2008)
June 09, 2008

This site will be taking a break between June 12 and June 27. Wish I had something better to write about on my way out than a dismal summary judgment case from the Eighth Circuit, which is improved only slightly by a thoughtful dissent by Judge Colloton.

Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. June 9, 2008)
June 09, 2008

From the same court that cabined public employees' First Amendment rights in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U. S. 410 (2006), the Supreme Court now holds -- 6 to 3 -- that the recently-minted "class of one" equal protection doctrine does not extend to claims concerning adverse action in public employment.

Holender v. Mutual Industries North Inc,, No. 06-4632 (3d Cir. June 3, 2008); Justice v. Crown Cork and Seal Co., Inc., No. 07-8036 (10th Cir. June 3, 2008); Crawford v. Carroll, No. 07-11603 (11th Cir. June 3, 2008)
June 03, 2008

I'm heartened to report three decisions yesterday all reversing summary judgment against employees: the Third Circuit applying the Holowecki decision in an ADEA case; the Tenth Circuit sending an ADA "regarded-as" case back for trial; and a straight-up race discrimination and retaliation case, decided by the Eleventh Circuit.