Jump to Navigation

Employment Law Blog

Pierson v. Quad/Graphics Printing Corp., No. 13-5784 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2014)

Here's a nice, simple reminder for HR professionals and laid-off employees: that when an employer can not line-up behind a single reason (or even a single decisionmaker) for a termination decision, and instead keeps changing its mind, the reason lurking beneath may well be discrimination. The Sixth Circuit sends an age-discrimination claim back for trial where the employer allegedly switched stories midstream, from contending that the employee's job was eliminated to arguing that the termination was based on a negative performance evaluation.

Mazzeo v. Color Resolutions International, LLC, No. 12-10250 (11th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014)

As recently noted here (see entry for January 26, 2014), the U.S. Courts of Appeals are just now deciding the next generation of disabilities-discrimination law cases governed by the 2008 Americans With Disabilities Act amendments (ADAAA). Here, the Eleventh Circuit notes - in a case reversing summary judgment for an employee in chronic pain - that some of its prior, more restrictive case law must now be reconsidered. (And, as an added bonus, the employee also earns a reversal of his age discrimination claim.)

Hague v. Univ of Texas Health Sci. Ctr., No. 13-50102 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014)

In a non-precedential opinion that may nevertheless be important to litigators, a Fifth Circuit panel splits three ways on whether an employee must continue to defend her Title VII prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas rubric after the employer presents a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an employee's termination. The courts continue to disagree on this issue even decades after the Supreme Court first framed-out this method of proof.

Demyanovich v. Cadon Plating & Coatings, No. 13-1015 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit sends back for trial an ADA and Family and Medical Leave Act case, where the employee - returning from medical leave, but still experiencing health difficulties - was forced to work beyond his medical restrictions. He was allegedly told by a Vice President of the company, shortly before his termination, that (1) the employer was not covered by the FMLA, and (2) the employee was a "liability" to the company. The panel holds that there is sufficient evidence that the company, while employing fewer than the necessary fifty employees mandated by the FMLA, was an "integrated employer" with a larger affiliated company.

Samson v. Federal Express Corporation, No. 12-14145 (11th Cir. Mar. 26, 2014)

The panel majority in this Eleventh Circuit appeal reverses summary judgment in an ADA and Florida state law claim. It holds that FedEx possibly imposed an impermissible qualification standard on a job applicant with diabetes, by insisting that he pass a federal Department of Transportation medical certification for a mechanic's position that was not otherwise subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).

Tussey v. ABB, Inc., No. 12-2056 (8th Cir. Mar. 19, 2014)

When a retirement plan manages employees' money, it also has a responsibility to keep an eye on the expenses that can quietly erode away earnings. The Eighth Circuit affirms an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty judgment against two retirement plans for allowing its recordkeeper to overcharge the fund for services, and orders the return of $13.4 million. The court nonetheless vacates for further proceedings a claim for inappropriate investment options, and reverses (over a dissent) a judgment that the plan recordkeeper converted short-term funds (a "float") to non-plan purposes.

Rorrer v. City of Stow, No. 13-3272 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014)

In a dramatic turnabout for the plaintiff, the Sixth Circuit not only reverses summary judgment in this ADA case - holding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact whether a monocular firefighter could perform the essential functions of his job - but then disqualifies the original district court judge in the case on the grounds of appearance of partiality, when that judge arbitrarily limited plaintiff's discovery and then scolded him (groundlessly) for violating a court order.

Kramer v. Wasatch Co. Sheriff's Office, No. 12-4058 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2014)

The Tenth Circuit today issued a terribly important read for people interested in fighting workplace sex harassment. The panel reverses summary judgment in a Title VII case where a woman jail employee was (allegedly) sexually assaulted by a sergeant, repeatedly, and yet failed to complain immediately for fear of losing her job. While not a complete win for the employee, the opinion points the way to others trapped in similar workplace dilemmas.

Shazor v. Prof'l Transit Mgmt., No. 13-3253 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2014)

A Sixth Circuit case addresses the occasional issue of whether Title VII supports "sex-plus" claims - in this case, a claim that she suffered discrimination specifically as an African-American woman. The panel agrees that such a claim can be made, and that the employee may point to treatment of non-African-American women as comparable employees. The case also goes to show the importance of email traffic in discrimination cases.

Rodriguez-Vives v. PR Fire Fighters Corps, No. 13-1587 (1st Cir. Feb. 18, 2014)

Often, employees must fight and fight again to enforce their rights. A woman denied employment as a firefighter in 2001 sued to corps for sex discrimination in 2005. Four years later, she obtained a settlement to employ her as a "transitory" firefighter until a slot opened up in the training academy. But she was compelled to sue once again when her sergeant allegedly harassed her in retaliation for bringing the original complaint. The First Circuit holds that she states a claim for violation of the Title VII anti-retaliation section 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-3(a).

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close
facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

New York Office
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Chicago Office
203 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-924-4888
Map and Directions

San Francisco Office
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions