Title VII requires that employers exercise due care to prevent sexual harassment of their employees by customers. The EEOC prevailed at trial on just such a claim, winning a $250,000 verdict for a woman shelver who - a jury found - was stalked for over a year by a male customer, while Costco took inadequate measures to protect her. The Seventh Circuit upholds the verdict, and even remands the case back to the district court for award of more back-pay relief.
Hager v. DBG Partners, Inc., No. 17-11147 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018)
The Fifth Circuit becomes the first federal court of appeals to recognize a remedy for a plan's failure to notify a COBRA participant of the termination of a health-care plan under 29 U.S.C. § 1166(a)(4): award of a civil penalty under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(A) and 1132(c)(1).
EEOC v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 16-35457 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2018)
May an employer charge a job applicant for the cost of a post-offer medical review, when the employer believes that the applicant has a medical impairment? The Ninth Circuit holds "no" under the ADA, affirming a judgment on behalf of an employee who was asked to pay for his own MRI.
Understanding the Employment Rights of "Gig Economy" Workers
As the economy continues to shift from a culture of full-time employment to an on-demand "gig" marketplace, the landscape of workers' rights is also changing. Working as an independent contractor rather than an employee allows a worker more flexibility and autonomy in their work schedule, among other things, but that may come at the cost of losing certain benefits. It's crucial to understand how the legal rights of workers who are considered "employees" are different from those who are considered independent contractors such as consultants, short-term contract workers, and freelancers.
McClellan v. Midwest Machining, Inc., No. 17-1992 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018)
The Supreme Court in Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998), held that an ADEA plaintiff does not have to tender back (offer to return) consideration paid in settlement of a claim as a condition to challenge that settlement in court. Today, the Sixth Circuit (in a 2-1 decision) extends that ruling to Title VII and Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims.
Can Lenders Legally Discriminate and Limit Access to Credit Based on Applicants' Immigration Status?
Many immigrants in the U.S. who are not on the path to citizenship, particularly those previously protected by the DACA program, still pursue the American dream of a college education and buying their own home and car along with other major purchases.
Attempting to finance this dream, as many immigrants learn, can be an almost insurmountable goal. Unlike race and national origin, which may not be considered as factors for potential lenders, citizenship and immigration status is a more unsettled question.
How Biometrics in the Workplace Threaten Employee Rights in Illinois and Elsewhere
Today's computer technology improves exponentially from year to year, putting tiny, yet ever more powerful, computers in the palms of our hands, on our bodies, or even under our skin. With the proliferation of wearable "Internet of Things" devices, many new technologies that track our physical and physiological traits are moving into the workplace - yet, our privacy laws are struggling to keep up. This gap between technology and the law can put employees' privacy rights at risk.
EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. 17-6278 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018)
The Sixth Circuit affirms a jury award in an ADA case of $27,565 in back pay and $250,000 in compensatory damages, awarded to a dollar-store clerk who was fired for grabbing orange juice from the store fridge twice during diabetic episodes. The panel notes, among other things, that the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation can itself be direct evidence of discrimination.
Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc., No. 17-1191 (1st Cir. Aug. 1, 2018)
Here's a valuable case for employees suffering harassment (and lawyers who bring such cases). The First Circuit reverses summary judgment for age-based and retaliatory hostile work environment, holding that the district court put the plaintiff to an impossible standard of specificity to prove individual incidents of harassment. It also holds that repeated threats of termination can constitute constructive discharge.
Rogers v. Henry Ford Health Sys., No. 17-1998 (6th Cir. July 31, 2018), and Batson v. The Salvation Army, No. 16-11788 (11th Cir. July 31, 2018)
Two opinions this week highlight the power of retaliation claims: in each case, the principal discrimination claim failed on summary judgment, yet the retaliation claim was remanded for trial.
