Tag Archives: EEOC

Employer’s Religious Beliefs vs. Employee Discriminatory Termination. Who Wins?

14 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by in EEOC, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Religious Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on Employer’s Religious Beliefs vs. Employee Discriminatory Termination. Who Wins?

Tags

, , , , ,

Can an Employer’s Religious Belief Defeat a Discriminatory Firing? By Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor

http://bit.ly/1RXE7gy

Can an employer’s religious beliefs defeat an otherwise discriminatory termination? Employers in Michigan may soon have much-needed guidance on this issue based on an employment discrimination case filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Federal District Court in Michigan.

Specifically, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. In 2013 over its decision to fire a transgender funeral director (EEOC v RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes Complaint).

Continue reading →

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 →

Houston Law Firm Fires Pregnant Employees.

18 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by in Arbitration, EEOC, Employment Contracts, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Law Office Management, Pregnancy Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on Houston Law Firm Fires Pregnant Employees.

Tags

, , , , ,

Wayne Wright Fired Another Pregnant Worker, by Thomas J. Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q57966e

A law firm in Houston, Texas, fired a female employee because she became pregnant. The employee filed a charge against the firm with the EEOC, and then sued the firm. You would think that, if the firm somehow missed that this was an employment no-no, this experience educated management at the firm.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. The firm, which has offices in several locations, fired a paralegal from its El Paso firm when she became pregnant. The paralegal sued the firm, but this one has a twist. The firm invoked an arbitration agreement.

The matter went up to the El Paso Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. The paralegal’s case will go to arbitration. Why wasn’t this a slam dunk against the firm? -CCE

Fifth Circuit Reverses District Court On Termination of Temporary Employees.

24 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law, Litigation, Summary judgment, Workers' Compensation, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Fifth Circuit Reverses District Court On Termination of Temporary Employees.

Tags

, , , , ,

Fifth Circuit Reverses Western District for Making Credibility Determinations, by Thomas J. Crane, San Antonio Employment Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nk7tmln

In Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc. and Manpower of Texas, LP, No. 14-50944 (5th Cir. 8/10/2015), the Fifth Circuit overruled the district court’s summary judgment. The court addressed a frequent issue, who is responsible for the termination of temporary employees? But, in so doing, the higher court also addressed a more frequent issue, how to apply the summary judgment standard. . . .

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. . . .

Note Limited Time to File Employment Discrimination Charge!

14 Saturday Jun 2014

Posted by in Anti-Retaliation, Bullying, Disabilities, EEOC, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Minimum Wage, Overtime, Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Note Limited Time to File Employment Discrimination Charge!

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Time Limits For Filing A Charge, U.S. Equal Employment Commission

http://www.eeoc.gov/employees/timeliness.cfm

The anti-discrimination laws give you a limited amount of time to file a charge of discrimination. In general, you need to file a charge within 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place. The 180 calendar day filing deadline is extended to 300 calendar days if a state or local agency enforces a law that prohibits employment discrimination on the same basis. The rules are slightly different for age discrimination charges. For age discrimination, the filing deadline is only extended to 300 days if there is a state law prohibiting age discrimination in employment and a state agency or authority enforcing that law. The deadline is not extended if only a local law prohibits age discrimination.

Note: Federal employees and job applicants have a different complaint process, and generally must contact an agency EEO Counselor within 45 days. The time limit can be extended under certain circumstances.

Regardless of how much time you have to file, it is best to file as soon as you have decided that is what you would like to do.

Time limits for filing a charge with EEOC generally will not be extended while you attempt to resolve a dispute through another forum such as an internal grievance procedure, a union grievance, arbitration or mediation before filing a charge with EEOC. Other forums for resolution may be pursued at the same time as the processing of the EEOC charge. . . .

Sexual Harrassment of Receptionist by Patient Costs Employer $30,000.

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in EEOC, Employment Law, Harassment

≈ Comments Off on Sexual Harrassment of Receptionist by Patient Costs Employer $30,000.

Tags

, , ,

Third-party harassment costs employer $30,000, by Sharon B. Bauman, Alan M. King, Stanley W. Levy and Andrew L. Satenberg, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP

http://tinyurl.com/pen4et7

Why it matters: Employers, take note: harassment in the workplace can be committed not just by supervisors and coworkers, but by third parties such as customers, patients, clients, delivery people, or repair workers. The settlement in the Ross case (EEOC v. Southwest Virginia Community Health System) should remind employers that regardless of the source, sexual harassment cannot be tolerated in the workplace – or liability may result.

EEOC Loses Claim of Unlawful Discrimination Against Employer

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by in Class Actions, Criminal History, EEOC, Employment Law, Race Discrimination

≈ Comments Off on EEOC Loses Claim of Unlawful Discrimination Against Employer

Tags

, , ,

 EEOC Smacked Down in Rare Employer Win in Defending Claim of Unlawful Discrimination, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor
http://bit.ly/17hzWaK