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.

Mogenhan v. Napolitano, No. 08-5457 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 29, 2010

Possibly a no-brainer, but here goes: Employers, gratuitously publicizing an employee's complaint of discrimination, besides simply being cruel, may be an act of "retaliation" under federal anti-discrimination laws.

Sixth Anniversary; Marion County Coroners Office v. EEOC, No. 09-3595 (7th Cir. July 27, 2010); Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 08-12199 (11th Cir. July 27, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 27, 2010

This week marks six years of blogging EEO law at this site. In a curious wrinkle of anti-discrimination law, claims of racial and other discrimination by governmental, policy-making officials are governed not directly by Title VII, but by the Government Employee Rights Act (GERA), 42 U.S.C. ? 2000e-16a to 16c, covering any "individual chosen or appointed . . . to serve the elected official on the policymaking level." Such employees may obtain relief though an administrative hearing before an ALJ, with review by the EEOC, and administrative review before the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Here's a rare, reported instance of such a case. And an Eleventh Circuit en banc Title VII case evaporates with a settlement.

Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Center, No. 09-3661 (7th Cir. July 20, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 20, 2010

Can it really be 2010, and there's a defendant (and willing counsel) arguing to a court that it is allowed under Title VII to accommodate a client's racial preference not to have a black nursing assistant? Sadly, yes. The Seventh Circuit reverses and remands summary judgment on this issue.

Gacek v. American Airlines, No. 09-3131 (7th Cir. July 15, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 15, 2010

When the only tool in your box is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some days, it seems that McDonnell Douglas is the only tool in the federal judiciary's box to decide employment law cases. Judge Posner, in this opinion decided under Illinois tort law, tries to curb that habit a little.

Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, No. 09-5089 (10th Cir. July 13, 2010); Narayan v. EGL, Inc., No. 07-16487 (9th Cir. July 13, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 13, 2010

The Tenth Circuit affirms dismissal of federal employment law claims against the Catholic Church based on the ministerial exception, declaring a partial split with the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit calls foul on a contract by an employer that attempted, baldly, to opt-out of California state-law labor protections.

Breiner v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, No. 09-15568 (9th Cir. July 8, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 08, 2010

Following the Seventh Circuit's decision in Henry v. Milwaukee County, 539 F.3d 573 (7th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit also rejects a BFOQ defense for female-only lieutenants at a women's correctional facility.

Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers, No. 08-15358 (11th Cir. July 2, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 02, 2010

The Eleventh Circuit passes on a facinating case, reversing summary judgment in a Title VII retaliation case where the employee "wrote a letter of protest to her bosses, complaining, among other things, about what she perceived to be discrimination against her based on her national origin," and "[t]he company admits that Alvarez was fired sooner instead of later because of that letter, which it concedes is protected conduct"

Vivenzio v. City of Syracuse, No. 08-2436 (2d Cir. July 1, 2010); Lowe v. Hamilton County Dept. of Job and Family Services, No. 09-3432 (6th Cir. July 1, 2010)
Posted by: Paul Mollica
July 01, 2010

The Second Circuit vacates summary judgment, and remands for further development, a challenge by two frustrated white applicants for fire-fighter positions to a 1980 consent decree that required the city fire department ranks to mirror the percentage of African-Americans in the city's labor pool. The Sixth Circuit affirms denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity in an ADA discrimination and retaliation case to an agency that was indemnified by the state, but otherwise operated by the county.