Jump to Navigation

July 2012 Archives

Henley v. Brown, No. 11-2561 (8th Cir. July 26, 2012)

A district court needs to be reminded that Title VII and § 1983 protect different (if overlapping) interests in a government workplace, that an employee can elect a remedy under either or both, and that a        § 1983 claimant need not pursue the administrative prerequisites for Title VII.

Passananti v. Cook County, No. 11-1182 (7th Cir. July 20, 2012)

This my favorite kind of entry to write: the Seventh Circuit revives a jury verdict for a victim of sex harassment, and in so doing elaborates that behavior  not particularly sexual in nature - such as repeatedly calling a woman employee a "bitch" - can support Title VII liability. Regrettably, though, the plaintiff loses her termination claim and a large percentage of her damages. 

Gove v. Career Systems Development Corp., No. 11-2468 (1st Cir. July 17, 2012)

Owing to a tactical decision by the defendant and some inopportune drafting, a panel of the First Circuit holds (2-1) that an arbitration clause tacked onto an employment application did not apply to a person who interviewed for a job but was never hired - allegedly because she was eight months' pregnant at the time.

Chattman v. Toho Tenax America, Inc., No. 10-5306 (6th Cir. July 23, 2012)

The Sixth Circuit applies the Supreme Court's recent decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011), to reverse summary judgment in a racially-discriminatory discipline case under Title VII. Echoing another Sixth Circuit decision (Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Service Dept., 549 F.3d 666, 104 FEP 1473 (6th Cir. 2008)), it holds that an employer that punishes African-Americans who engage in horseplay in the workplace more severely than whites who commit the same infraction are flirting with Title VII liability.

Ramirez v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, No. 10-15086 (11th Cir. July 12, 2012)

While private-sector employees need merely comply with certain administrative prerequisites in order to file a Title VII civil action (principally, the filing of a timely EEOC charge), federal sector employees must fully exhaust all administrative remedies before they commence suit. The distinction, as illustrated by today's Eleventh Circuit decision, can pay important dividends. The panel here reverses judgment as a matter of law against a pro se applicant for a job at the U.S. DOT, and holds that the agency is barred from collaterally attacking an adverse finding on limitations in federal court that it lost and did not challenge before the EEOC. 

Doe v. The Salvation Army, No. 11-3019 (6th Cir. July 11, 2012)

The saga of the Doe case continues, with its second trip to the Sixth Circuit since it was first filed in 2005. Once again, the plaintiff wins a reversal of summary judgment, with the Sixth Circuit holding that there is no "religious organization" exception to coverage under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

EEOC v. The Picture People, Inc., No. 11-1306 (10th Cir. July 10, 2012); Bertsch v. Overstock.com, No. 11-1428 (10th Cir. July 10, 2012)

The Tenth Circuit issues two decisions today, both involving the EEOC - in different capacities. In the first, the court splits 2-1 on an ADA reasonable accommodation and retaliation case brought by the Commission itself, holding that a photography studio was not required to accommodate a deaf photographer by providing an ASL signer. In the second, in which the EEOC appeared as amicus, the court affirms summary judgment on a sex harassment claim but reverses on a retaliation claim.

McCravy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 10-1074 (4th Cir. July 5, 2012)

One of the difficulties of enforcing participants' statutory rights under ERISA, heretofore, has been the lack of effective make-whole remedies. But in the wake of last term's CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), participants have remedial options not previously available to them for breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Fourth Circuit reverses summary judgment in a case where a participant had been allowed to pay for years for dependent life insurance that (evidently) she was not entitled to receive.

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

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 200W
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions