Blog Topic

Daily Developments in EEO Law

Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, No. 07-1903 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2008)
August 27, 2008

Here's a cautionary tale for employees who secretly tape-record their conversations at work -- in Illinois, at least, it's considered eavesdropping, and it can lose you your job!

Attachments:
Argyropoulos.pdf

Buckley v. Mukasey, No. 07-1195 (4th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008)
August 25, 2008

A federal employee maintains (among other claims) that her agency held her back from a promotion because of her support of a Title VII class action in the workplace. Although a jury returned a verdict against her, the Fourth Circuit improbably reverses the judgment for the employer and sends it back for a new trial.

Hurlic v. Southern California Gas, No. 06-55599 (9th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008)
August 21, 2008

The latest ERISA "cash balance" case comes to grief in the Ninth Circuit, with the panel holding, among other things, that plaintiff counsel's attempt to extend the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to the same claim was preempted by federal law. On the other hand, the plaintiffs eke out a victory over the employer's failure to give notice of an amendment to the plan.

Henry v. Milwaukee County, No. 07-2534 (7th Cir. Aug. 20, 2008)
August 20, 2008

A bench trial and appeal of a correctional guard case, turning on a Title VII "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) defense (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)), leads to a startling result: the Seventh Circuit reverses judgment for the employer and orders entry of judgment for plaintiffs instead.

Attachments:
Henryv.Milwaukee.pdf

Vaughn v. Epworth Villa, No. 07-6005 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2008)
August 19, 2008

The Tenth Circuit holds that an employee's sending copies of a patient's private medical records to the EEOC -- to substantiate a claim of disparate treatment -- constitutes "protected activity" under the "participation" prong of the anti-retaliation section of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). But it also turns out, in the end, not to be very wise.

Petty v. Metro. Govt. of Nashville-Davidson County, No. 07-5649 (6th Cir. Aug. 18, 2008); Abner v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., No. 07-30674 (5th Cir. Aug. 14, 2008);
August 18, 2008

The Sixth Circuit sorts out a returning serviceman's substantive right to reinstatement, and the separate prohibition against discrimination, under USERRA. The Fifth Circuit affirms that a Title VII plaintiff who prevails after an initial mistrial may still -- under appropriate circumstances -- be awarded attorney's fees for the mistrial.

Bryant v. Dollar General Corp., No. 07-5006 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 2008)
August 17, 2008

This is likely the most ridiculous defense argument to surface in a published opinion in 2008: that the anti-retaliation section of the Family and Medical Leave Act does not, in fact, protect an employee from retaliation for taking family or medical leave. The Sixth Circuit inters it, without honors.

Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, No. 07-6204 (6th Cir. Aug. 11, 2008); McIntosh v. Partridge, No. 07-20440 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2008, revised Aug. 11, 2008)
August 12, 2008

It's not enough that our National Guardsmen and Guardswomen are dodging bullets in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're also facing obstacles in our federal courts under the USERRA.

Makky v. Chertoff, No. 07-3271 (3d Cir. Aug. 7, 2008); Zolotarev v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 06-16665 (9th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008)
August 07, 2008

After last month's decision in White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 07-1626 (6th Cir. July 3, 2008), where the Sixth Circuit broke with the other circuits over the proper analysis of a so-called "mixed-motive" case under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), here comes the Third Circuit wading (ankle-deep, at least) into the same issue. And the Ninth Circuit joins the other circuits in holding that an employment discrimination claim accrues upon discovery of the adverse action, rather than when the employee discovers the discriminatory motive.

Steele v. Johanns, No. 05-5430 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2008); In re Navy Chaplain, No. 07-5359 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2008)
August 01, 2008

The D.C. Circuit drops two employment-related cases in the dog days of August: a reversal of a too-hasty summary judgment, and the sputtering-out of an Establishment Clause claim by a group of Naval chaplains.