The Third Circuit on Tuesday took up the issue of causation, and the amount of proof a plaintiff must present, under two federal anti-retaliation laws. In Egan, the panel holds that employees may pursue FMLA retaliation claims under a mixed-motive theory, as supported by a Department of Labor regulation. In Carvalho-Grevious, the court announces a lowered bar for establishing Title VII retaliation at the prima facie stage.
The Third Circuit, declaring a split with several other courts, holds that an ADEA disparate-impact case may allege discrimination against a subset of the protected group, here employees 50 and over. Prior decisions had held that such claims could be based only on the entire protected group - age 40 and over - but the Third Circuit panel holds that "their reasoning relies primarily on policy arguments that we do not find persuasive."
The Third Circuit issues a solid reminder to judges that - notwithstanding the increased attention on filing "plausible" complaints under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 - federal courts do not require the pleading of legal theories. Thus, plaintiffs are not required to specify the method that they plan to use to prove discrimination cases in their Title VII complaints.
The Third Circuit overrules its prior, restrictive case law interpreting the limitations period under Title VII for a claim of hostile work environment, holding that - in light of Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) - the employee need not present evidence on the "permanence" of harassing conduct to prove a continuing violation. The panel reverses and remands a claim of sex harassment to be evaluated under the new, more forgiving standard.
A case that demonstrates the importance of communication between employee and counsel, as well as the imperative to preserve and locate documents. The Third Circuit devotes 35 pages to reversing a mistrial and sanctions against a plaintiff in a disability-discrimination case for supposedly withholding original doctor's notes. In hindsight, a simple memo could have headed off this trip to the court of appeals.
For the second time in three months, The Third Circuit confronts a New Jersey municipal residency requirement - challenged for disparate impact under Title VII - and once again rules in favor of the applicants. One twist in this case was that the residency requirement was, in part, arguably required by a consent decree. The panel rejects a Ricci defense.
In a recent decision of the Third Circuit, we are reminded that millions of federal civilian employees still have no protections against discrimination on account of gender orientation or identity.
A pro se plaintiff wins a victory in the Third Circuit, reversing summary judgment on his Title VII claim that Newark, New Jersey's residency requirement for city employment has a disparate impact on non-Latino white job applicants.
Here's our first published opinion addressing the recently-decided Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011), in the context of a fully-tried case. The Third Circuit holds in this Title VII case that the district court did not err in denying judgment as a matter of law for the city. It concludes that the jury could have found that the plaintiff's Police Board of Inquiry hearings (which led to his termination) did not break the chain of causation from the retaliatory write-up that commenced the disciplinary process.
Updated to March 3, 2017