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.

Dolgaleva v. Virginia Beach City Public Schools, No. 08-1515 (4th Cir. Jan. 29, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 29, 2010

Though the Fourth Circuit ultimately does the right thing in this unpublished opinion, vacating and remanding dismissal of a Title VII national-origin case at the complaint stage, it should throw a scare into plaintiffs'-side lawyers in federal court that a hearing on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion can be the occasion for a mini-trial on the merits.

Lowe v. Independent School District No. 1, No. 08-6231 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 25, 2010

In a decision recalling last year's Ekstrand v. School Dist. of Somerset, 583 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2009), the Tenth Circuit (in an unpublished opinion) reverses summary judgment and remands an ADA reasonable accommodation and constructive discharge case involving a school teacher who sought but did not receive a suitable classroom.

Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C., No. 08-3860 (8th Cir. Jan. 21, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 21, 2010

The Eighth Circuit joins other U.S. Courts of Appeals that have ruled on claims that an employer violated Title VII by imposing a sex-stereotyped stigma on a protected employee -- here, taking away a front-desk clerk's daytime hours because she supposedly dressed like Ellen DeGeneres and lacked the "Midwestern girl look." Summary judgment is reversed, on a 2-1 vote, and the case is remanded for trial.

Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 07-10270 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 20, 2010

A big win for harassment victims is issued today in the Eleventh Circuit, unanimously vacating summary judgment and returning for trial a Title VII claim that generalized hostility to women (such as raunchy talk and pornography in the workplace) may create a hostile work environment, even if not specifically targeted at a particular woman employee.

Serwatka v. Rockwell Automation Inc., No. 08-4010 (7th Cir. Jan. 15, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 15, 2010

It pains me to report that the Seventh Circuit today rules out mixed-motive liability under the ADA, citing Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009). It holds that 42 U.S.C. § 12117 incorporates into the ADA only the "powers, remedies, and procedures" of Title VII, and not the mixed-motive liability section of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m).

Wojcicki v. Aiken Technical College, No. 08-1469 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 12, 2010

Here's a modest success story for a pro se litigant who was denied leave to supplement the record on a motion to dismiss to demonstrate that he had met the administrative prerequisites for filing a Title VII, ADA and ADEA case.

Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville, Inc. (BEHI), No. 08-16656 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 11, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit reverses summary judgment in a pre-employment medical inquiry case (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)), holding -- in matters of first impression for that court -- that this section is enforceable by a private right of action, that the plaintiff must present evidence of injury or loss, and that the pleading requirements for such a claim are modest. The case also demonstrates how an employer may get in trouble by asking one-too-many pesky questions about a positive blood test.

Kannady v. City of Kiowa, No. 07-7002 (10th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 08, 2010

Plaintiffs' lawyers: do you know those clients who tell you that they took secret tape-recordings where the defendants admitted their age (or race or sex) bias? Here's a case where the plaintiff's recordings came back to bite him!

Myers v. Central Florida Investments Inc., No. 08-16291 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 06, 2010

The plaintiff wins a victory here on appeal -- she keeps a jury award of $103,622.09 in compensatory and $506,847.75 in punitive damages for her state-law battery claim, against one of the wealthiest real-estate magnates in Florida -- which is blemished only by the loss on her Title VII and Florida law sex harassment claim.

Stewart v. St. Elizabeths Hospital, No. 09-7013 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 5, 2010); Stanley v. Abacus Technology Corp., No. 08-2306 (10th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
January 05, 2010

Two plaintiffs' cases (one under the Rehabilitation Act from the D.C. Circuit, the other under Title VII from the Tenth Circuit) founder on the same shortcoming: according to the employers, all the employees had to do was ask for accommodations, but they never did.