Tag Archives: Discrimination

Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

Tags

, , , ,

Dis-Orderly Conduct: Hospital Security Guard Fired After Incident With Psychiatric Patient Cannot Advance Discrimination Claims, by Alexis B. Kasacavage, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP Blog  

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=729cc33f-832f-49e3-97f6-7a1c3c8f1997

Interesting analysis on how the courts came to the same conclusion but for different reasons. -CCE

 In Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, et al., the Sixth Circuit recently upheld a Michigan district court’s decision to dismiss a 52-year-old African-American female security guard’s age, race and sex discrimination claims arising from her discharge following an incident with a combative psychiatric patient at the hospital where she worked.

Continue reading →

Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

15 Wednesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Employment Law, Litigation Hold, Preservation, Race Discrimination, Sanctions, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

≈ Comments Off on Ignore Duty For Litigation Holds At Your Peril.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t Hit That Delete Button: An Update On Litigation Holds For Employment Claims, by Andrew P. Sherrod, Inside Counsel Magazine

http://tinyurl.com/ka6thgo

By now, most companies are — or at least should be — well aware of their obligation to preserve relevant documents and electronic information when they reasonably anticipate litigation. This duty can arise in many contexts, but employment complaints are a prime example. Despite the multitude of judicial decisions and articles on the subject, companies continue to hinder their defense of employment claims by failing to undertake appropriate preservation measures.

The consequences of failing to implement and monitor a litigation hold in response to an employment claim were reinforced in a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Hawley v. Mphasis Corp.

In Hawley, an employee of the defendant company claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his ethnicity in a number of ways during the course of his employment. The employee filed an EEOC charge of race and national origin discrimination in September 2009. The company terminated the employee in November 2009, and he thereafter filed a second EEOC charge, which was mailed to the company in December 2009. The employee then filed a discrimination suit in January 2012 against the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state civil rights laws.

During his employment, the plaintiff received a company-issued laptop computer on which he was required to perform his work. After his termination, the employee returned the computer to the company in December 2009. The next month, the company reassigned the computer to another employee, permanently deleting all of the plaintiff’s data.

The company also waited until April 2012 — almost three months after the filing of the plaintiff employee’s lawsuit and more than two years after his EEOC charges — to instruct the plaintiff’s supervisor and several other employees to preserve all documents and communications related to the plaintiff. . . .

Arizona Anti-Gay Bill Vetoed.

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in Employment Law, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection, Gender Discrimination, Government, Hostile Work Environment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arizona Governor Vetoes  Anti-Gay Bill, by Dan Nowicki, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, and Alia Beard Rau, The Arizona Republic, USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/26/arizona-governor-vetoes-anti-gay-bill/5849187/

It will be interesting to see how Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto will affect similar legislation in other states, such as Oklahoma, Idaho, and Kansas, and if the pressure from businesses and the public have not already done so. -CCE

Facing intense pressure from political and business interests and a growing public outcry, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced Wednesday that she had vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to refuse service to gays and others based on religious beliefs.

Brewer said the bill was unnecessary legislation that threatened the state’s recovering economy by driving away high-profile events such as next year’s Super Bowl and corporations looking to relocate to Arizona.

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value — so is non-discrimination,” Brewer said at a news conference announcing the veto.  She said the proposed law, known as Senate Bill 1062, was too broadly worded and could have resulted in “unintended and negative consequences.” . . .

“Must Read” for HR – Evidence of Hiring Discrimination Using Social Media.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Affirmative Action, EEOC, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Race Discrimination

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Everyone knows by now that human resources professionals and employers use social media to screen potential employees. Studies now show that some employers illegally discriminate against applicants based on what they find. CCE 

Study Finds Evidence of Unlawful Discrimination in Using Social Media to Recruit Employees, posted by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor

http://tinyurl.com/k63s24l

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (reported on 11/21/2013 by Jennifer DeVries) discussed a study showing bias in the hiring process when social media is used to screen job applicants. Because of the potential for unlawful discrimination and losing out on otherwise qualified job applicants, the article and study should be a “must read” for every human resource professional or anyone with hiring responsibilities.

“Supervisor” Defined by U.S. Supreme Court

04 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in Employment Law, Harassment, Race Discrimination, Trial Tips and Techniques, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on “Supervisor” Defined by U.S. Supreme Court

Tags

, , , ,

Supreme Court refines Title VII standards, by Kevin B. Leblang and Robert N. Holtzman, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

http://bit.ly/1a45PkL

On June 24 2013 the US Supreme Court handed down opinions in two cases refining the standards applicable to claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, the court ruled that only employees with the authority to hire, fire or promote the alleged victim will be considered supervisors for purposes of Title VII harassment suits. Second, the Supreme Court applied a strict and employer-friendly causation standard to Title VII retaliation claims.