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.

Smith v. City of Allentown, No. 09-1998 (3d Cir. Dec. 22, 2009); Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., No. 09-2037 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 23, 2009

As we wind up the year (and while I take a short hiatus from blogging), the Third Circuit becomes the latest court to turn back an argument that Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009), supersedes McDonnell Douglas in ADEA cases. The Second Circuit returns the aged Meacham v. KAPL case back for a new trial (sigh!).

Dalvit v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 08-1283 (10th Cir. Dec. 21, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 21, 2009

Although the plaintiffs ultimately lose this Title VII discrimination/retaliation appeal on the merits, the Tenth Circuit in an unpublished decision holds that a bankruptcy does not necessarily discharge a Title VII claim redressable with injunctive relief. It also affirms that, under the right circumstances, a disciplinary letter may constitute an "adverse employment action."

Rederford v. U.S. Airways, Inc., No. 09-1005 (1st Cir. Dec. 14, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 16, 2009

Is an action for reinstatement under the ADA a "claim" dischargeable in bankruptcy as defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)? Holds the First Circuit, yes it is -- in an apparent case of first impression -- because the monetary remedy of front pay is an alternative to reinstatement, and all monetary claims (whether legal or equitable) are dischargeable.

City of Ontario, Calif. v. Quan, No. 08-1332 (U.S. S. Ct. Dec. 14, 2009); Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 09-291 (U.S. S. Ct. Dec. 14, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 14, 2009

Though granting cert in no straight employment cases today (the last day before adjournment for the holidays), our U.S. Supreme Court issues in orders in two employment-related disputes concerning privacy and retaliation.

Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., No. 08-15549 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 11, 2009

The Ninth Circuit joins the Seventh Circuit in holding that the ADA anti-retaliation section, 42 U.S.C. § 12203, provides only for equitable remedies and hence no jury trial.

Faul v. Potter, No. 09-0173 (2d Cir. Dec. 9, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 10, 2009

The Second Circuit, in an unpublished decision with scant details, sends a Title VII retaliation claim back to the district court for trial, holding that a fifteen-month gap between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory suspension did not defeat causation.

Woods v. Boeing Co. , No. 07-3358 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 10, 2009

A seemingly close-call ADEA pretext case wins a new life on appeal in this unpublished Tenth Circuit decision, though drawing three separate opinions that collectively give the district court judge something to chew on at trial.

Barone v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 08-1348 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 08, 2009

A thorough opinion concerning "adverse employment action" and "constructive discharge," and a dramatic set of events, regrettably goes unpublished in the Tenth Circuit, but you can read about it here.

Harman v. Unisys Corporation, No. 09-1298 (4th Cir. Dec. 4, 2009); Gordon v. England, No. 08-5365 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 04, 2009

Two courts of appeal reverse (at least in part) district court decisions which dismissed claims prematurely on the pleadings: the Fourth Circuit on an Iqbal issue, and the Sixth Circuit on an equitable tolling issue based on incompetent lawyering in a federal-employee Title VII case. But the courts are so darned modest about it that both decisions go unpublished.

Lopez v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 09-1664 (1st Cir. Dec. 3, 2009); Lockett v. Marsh, No. 08-3413 (6th Cir. Dec. 3, 2009)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
December 03, 2009

A Title VII disparate impact suit against Massachusetts is dismissed on appeal, on the ground that the state's involvement in certifying police officers for local governmental units does not make the state an "employer." A plaintiff who tried to keep her Ohio state-law employment discrimination case in state court loses out in this(unpublished) Sixth Circuit decision because one of her several counts -- though pled under state law -- implicated rights preempted by ERISA.