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.

Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc., No. 08-6112 (6th Cir. June 30, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 30, 2010

While affirming summary judgment in a humdrum, pro se Title VII case, the Sixth Circuit pauses to hold -- in an issue of apparent first impression in a published case in that circuit -- that an EEOC charge that does not expressly state a hostile work environment claim will not preserve such a claim for a later civil action, even if the conduct stated in the charge includes evidence of co-worker harassment.

Kaytor v. Electric Boat, No. 09-1859 (2d Cir. June 29, 2010); EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 09-1688 (4th Cir. June 28, 2010); Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291 (U.S. S. Ct. June 29, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 29, 2010

Hats off to two U.S. court of appeals' reversals of summary judgment this week (so far)! In the Second Circuit, a thorough opinion signed by Judge Kearse sends two Title VII claims for harassment and retaliation back for trial. The Fourth Circuit, in an unsigned non-precedential opinion, remands an EEOC case involving a benefits policy based on age. And the U.S. Supreme Court grants cert today in a Title VII case that presents an atypical retaliation scenario.

Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Center, No. 09-3028 (7th Cir. June 25, 2010); Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 09-2060 (1st Cir. June 25, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 25, 2010

The story of two Title VII trials won by plaintiffs. In the Seventh Circuit, the court affirms a housekeeper's judgment ($15,000 compensatory/$50,000 punitive) in a retaliation case against her former employer, over myriad objections to the trial and to the sufficiency of the evidence. In the First Circuit, a seven-figure verdict in a Title VII and state-law harassment and discrimination case vanishes in a post-trial judgment as a matter of law, upheld on appeal.

EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Company, No. 06-17261 (9th Cir. June 23, 2010); Jones v. National American University, No. 06-9300 (8th Cir. June 23, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 23, 2010

Two good results for employees today: the Ninth Circuit revives part of a case, for injunctive relief, against a mining operation and the Navajo Nation for discrimination against non-Navajo job applicants; and the Eighth Circuit affirms a jury verdict for an ADEA plaintiff who unsuccesfully sought a promotion.

EEOC v. Fairbrook Medical Clinic, No. 09-1610 (4th Cir. June 18, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 18, 2010

Whatever we might have learned from network TV shows about the randy lives of medical professionals, actually carrying out such behavior in real life can bite back. The Fourth Circuit reverses summary judgment in this Title VII sex harasment case concerning two doctors, observing that "[w]hat happened here . . . was not merely general crudity but a series of graphic remarks of a highly personal nature directed at a female employee by the sole owner of an establishment."

Wysocki v. IBM, No. 09-5161 (6th Cir. June 16, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 16, 2010

The Sixth Circuit, construing the unorthodox language of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. sec. 4302, holds that the employer's severance and release agreement -- while covered by this section -- was nevertheless enforceable. Writes concurring Judge Boyce Martin, "Section 4302 is an exceedingly strange statute, . . . . I cannot recall ever having encountered anything remotely similar in my more than thirty years on the bench."

Nino v. Diamonds International, No. 09-1268 (3d Cir. June 15, 2010); McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., No. 08-4661 (2d Cir. June 15, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 15, 2010

The Third Circuit tosses, in toto, an arbitration policy promulgated by a jewelry retailer, finding it both unconscionable under Virgin Island law and (more notably) forefeited by the employer's failure to file a dispositive motion during the first year of the litigation. The Second Circuit affirms summary judgment in a Title VII harassment case, but finds discord among the panel members about the right way to apply the Morgan limitations rule.

Zuress v. Donley, No. 08-17559 (9th Cir. June 8, 2010); Duvall v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Prods., LP, No. 08-7096 (10th Cir. June 9, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 09, 2010

Is a civilian employee with dual status in the Air Force Reserves a member of the armed services for purposes of intra-militaryimmunity under Title VII? Is a position "vacant" for purposes of a "reasonable accommodation" under the ADA when it is occupied by a temporary employee? Definitional questions dominate the week's cases.

Rosario v. Dept. of the Army, No. 08-2168 (1st Cir. June 2, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 02, 2010

The district court in this Title VII sex-harassment action believed -- bottom-line -- that the alleged harasser in this case was merely "a rude man that [sic] lacked courtesy and professionalism." But the First Circuit reverses summary judgment and finds enough evidence to warrant a trial over whether the behavior was severe or pervasive, and motivated by sex.

Moses v. Howard Univ., No. 08-7087 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2010); Brooks v. District Hospital Partners, LP, No. 09-7036 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2010); Porter v. Shah, No. 09-5167 (D.C. Cir. June 1, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
June 01, 2010

The D.C. Circuit -- not typically the most active of courts in the EEO arena -- today publishes three Title VII decisions, touching on judicial estoppel, the "single filing" rule, and what constitutes a "materially adverse" action for purposes of retaliation.