The Eighth Circuit reminds employers that even where a disabled employee requests an accommodation that is deemed unreasonable, they are still obliged to engage in an interactive process to see if any other accommodation might work. Garrison v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No....
tell us about your case
Daily Developments in EEO Law
Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc., No. 18-2385 (2d Cir. Sept. 24, 2019)
The Second Circuit holds that even though the plaintiff (in an ADA associational discrimination case) also plead the employer's supposedly "legitimate, non-discriminatory" reasons for termination in his complaint, the district court erred in weighing them while...
Menaker v. Hofstra Univ., No. 18-3089 (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2019)
Although it is a commonplace that employers do not violate Title VII simply by shortcutting their own internal disciplinary systems, that is not necessarily the case if the disciplinary proceeding itself is motivated in part by gender or racial stereotypes. Today,...
Cruz v. McAleenan, No. 17-5113 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 2019)
The D.C. Circuit remands a summary judgment in a Title VII case, holding that the district court erred in not allowing the plaintiff to get discovery on whether "white . . . or male employees, were disciplined less severely for the sort of behavior for which Cruz was...
Stepp v. Covance, Inc., No. 18-3292 (7th Cir. July 26, 2019)
Here's a terse reminder that when an employer's supposedly "legitimate, non-discriminatory" reason for an adverse action is utterly contradicted by the undisputed timeline, then summary judgment most likely ought to be denied.Stepp v. Covance, Inc., No. 18-3292 (7th...
Mayorga v. Merdon, No. 18-5045 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 2019) and Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, No. 17-5252 (D.C. Cir. July 2, 2019)
AOC in employment-law news: the Architect of the Capitol loses two Title VII appeals in the past week, both cases involving claims of denial of promotions due to national origin. Both shared the detail that supervisors allegedly mocked the plaintiffs because of their...
Furcron v. Mail Centers Plus, LLC, Nos. 18-12598 and -14636 (11th Cir. June 12, 2019)
A regular theme on this blog is for lawyers to keep an eye on remedies at all times. A pair of non-precedential Eleventh Circuit cases arising from the same trial illustrate the point. In the first, a fully-tried Title VII sex harassment case ends with a liability...
Booth v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 18-5985 (6th Cir. June 7, 2019)
Here's a cautionary tale from the Sixth Circuit about disabilities discrimination: just because an employee is medically restricted in some aspect of their job does not automatically translate into a covered "disability" for purposes of the ADA. The court affirms...
Davis v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7071 (D.C. Cir. June 7, 2019)
The D.C. Circuit holds (2-1) that a group of fired social workers (SWAs) and social service assistants (SSAs) had - contrary to the district court's ruling - sufficiently identified a "particular emploment practice" susceptible to challenge for its adverse racial...
J.D. v. Colonial Williamsburg, No. 18-1725 (4th Cir. May 31, 2019)
While somewhat out of the lane of employment law, this Title III ADA case - about whether a restaurant ought to have accommodated a parent's request to allow a child to bring his own food on a field trip - has some good general lessons for disability-discrimination...
tell us about your case
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
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
