Courts are split over whether, under the ADA, employers who are able to reassign incumbent employees to accommodate their disabilities must do so outside of a normal competitive, "best-qualified" application process. The Eleventh Circuit this week joined the fray, holding that employers do not need to abandon a so-called "best-qualified" policy for filling vacancies, even as a reasonable accommodation.
May an employer deny employment to a Black applicant who would not cut her dreadlocks? A decision by the Eleventh Circuit yesterday goes to the very core of the anti-discrimination statutes: what does it mean to discriminate in employment on the basis of "race"? The panel unfortunately holds that "race" under Title VII is limited to "immutable" physical characteristics, rather than cultural and other traits associated with race. In so doing, it potentially creates a rift between two major federal race-discrimination statutes, Title VII and § 1981.
The Eleventh Circuit adds its voice to the lower-court movement to abandon the McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), proof framework in discrimination cases - such as this one - where the plaintiff presents circumstantial evidence that bias was a motivating factor in an adverse decision. This could be the case that allows the Supreme Court to revisit this long-standing precedent.
The end of the year often brings a haul of decisions, when the courts of appeal clear their dockets for year's-end. Here's a short, to-the-point decision, reversing summary judgment on an ADEA and ERISA case where the district court judge misapprehended a controlling Supreme Court decision.
The Eleventh Circuit holds (2-1) that hiring guidelines that target employees a few years out of college, or that discourage hiring of employees with too much experience, may violate the ADEA if they have a disparate impact on hiring employees age 40 and over. The majority also holds that equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing an EEOC charge does not necessarily depend on concealment or fraud by the employer.
A Florida federal jury holds a union and county liable for retaliation against two employees for complaining about race discrimination. The Union argues on appeal that retaliation -- in the form of exposing the plaintiffs' names, complaint and projected cost of defense -- is constitutionally-protected free speech. The Eleventh Circuit affirms the verdict, nevertheless, holding that misleading and coercive speech amounting to a "call for reprisal" is not protected under the First Amendment.
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.)
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).
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.
The Eleventh Circuit takes a state university to task, in the very first lines of its opinion, for permitting a race (and gender) hostile environment to persist in one of its departments: "The facts of this case should greatly concern every taxpaying citizen of the State of Alabama, especially because it involves a public institution largely funded with tax dollars paid by the people of Alabama." The panel affirms a jury verdict in favor of three plaintiffs for harassment and retaliation, plus a cumulative award of over $1 million.