In this case, a white employee sues and wins at a jury trial over a claim that he was terminated by his employer for speaking up - in support of African-American coworkers - against a racially-hostile work environment. The Eighth Circuit affirms a judgment of $60,000 compensatory damages and $30,608 in back pay in his favor, but refuses him reinstatement or front pay.
Seven years into litigation, plaintiff James Killian is a little closer to achieving justice for his late wife. After litigating an ERISA case unsuccessfully before two federal district court judges and a Seventh Circuit panel, the full Seventh Circuit today holds that Mr. Killian may pursue a claim for himself and his spouse's estate against her health care plan. He alleges that the plan misled them about whether Ms. Killian's end-stage care was within network, in breach of the duty of prudence under 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B). The court affirms that the ERISA duty of prudence requires complete disclosure by the plan administrator, "even if that requires conveying information about which the beneficiary did not specifically inquire."
You do not have to be a die-hard football fan to have heard about the latest bullying scandal at the N.F.L. Richie Incognito, the left guard for the Miami Dolphins, has been suspended indefinitely for bullying and hazing his teammate, Jonathan Martin, the left tackle. Hazing and locker room pranks are common in the N.F.L., but Incognito's conduct had apparently crossed a line which caused the N.F.L. to step in and investigate the matter.
'Twas unfortunate that the Eighth Circuit should choose not to publish this short opinion today, reversing summary judgment in a race discrimination case under Title VII and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. It illustrates the important point that even seriously misbehaving workers have a right not to be discriminated against in employment. A suspended employee presents a genuine dispute of material fact about whether a white employee who committed a comparably serious work rule violation was treated more lightly.
Racial discrimination can be manifested subtly in numerous decisions, and slight deviations from procedure, over time. The Sixth Circuit reverses summary judgment in this Title VII and Ohio state law case, holding that an African-American plaintiff fired during a reduction-in-force (RIF) was entitled to a trial over whether the decision-maker - who allegedly gave minority employees harsher reviews - was motivated by race. An unusual factor here is that it was the employee rather than the employer who wanted to limit the range of comparable employees in evidence. The panel also considers the probative of "other discrimination" evidence against the decisionmaker.
The Seventh Circuit continues on its march toward sensible decision-making in employment discrimination cases, reversing dismissal of an ADEA case and reaffirming that an employee may survive summary judgment by any combination of evidence "that a rational jury could conclude" proves "that the employer took the adverse action against the plaintiff because he is a member of a protected class." The evidence included a deposition admission by the CEO that the company hired a new replacement salesman in his 20s because "he was a young individual" and, though inexperienced, "our thought process on him was he was a young guy, give him a shot [to] drive around the state showing fire trucks and learn the business."
Within a week of Abercrombie & Fitch ("A&F") announcing a settlement with the EEOC of two Title VII religious accommodation claims involving hijab-wearing employees in California, the Tenth Circuit orders entry of judgment for the clothing retailer against the EEOC in a similar case arising out of Oklahoma. The 2-1 decision applies a formalistic circuit rule that "the applicant or employee must initially provide the employer with explicit notice of the conflicting religious practice and the need for an accommodation for it." Employees are forewarned that, where workplace accommodations are concerned, courts expect you speak up for your rights.
Pregnant women and new mothers may soon enjoy greater protections against workplace discrimination in New York City. On September 24, 2013, the City Council amended the New York City Human Rights Law, already one of the most expansive anti-discrimination laws in the country, to protect women against pregnancy-related employment discrimination.
The Fifth Circuit, in a 10-6 en banc decision, affirms a jury verdict in favor of the government on a male iron worker's claim that he was sexually harassed by a male supervisor on a nearly-daily basis at his worksite, the Twin Spans bridges between New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana. The full court considers what an employee must prove to establish that a hostile-work-environment is "because . . . of sex," and whether the incident here was severe or pervasive. Meanwhile, the six dissenters between them contribute four separate opinions, lashing out at every aspect of the majority's interpretation of the record and Title VII law.
When does a human-resources executive truly speak for the corporation? This oft-ignored, yet critically important question occupies this Eleventh Circuit decision today, which remands a Title VII national-origin case to the district court for an evidentiary ruling on this issue. The lower court must now rule whether a remark allegedly made by the employer's HR director - that the Korean management of the company "refused to even consider American candidates" for an assistant accounting manager vacancy - may be admitted as evidence. One judge files a partially dissenting opinion on the remand.