Jump to Navigation

Daily Developments in EEO Law Archives

EEOC v. Md. Ins. Admin., No. 16-2408 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2018)

The panel majority reverses and remands judgment for the state in an Equal Pay Act case. It agrees with the Third and Tenth Circuits that the employer's burden on its affirmative defense is to show not only that a "factor other than sex" could have motivated a pay differential, but actually did motivate it. The dissenting judge would impose a higher burden of proof on the EEOC when it enforces the EPA against a state agency, citing the Tenth Amendment.

Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362 (11th Cir. Dec. 15, 2017)

In the ceaseless struggle over what is meant by "similarly situated," an Eleventh Circuit splits over whether the plaintiff - a Black woman detective with a heart condition - presented enough evidence that two white male officers who failed a physical-fitness requirement were treated better. The case also considers, for an ADA claim, whether receiving a Taser shock or pepper spraying in training was an "essential function" of the job.

Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr., No. 16-3573 (3d Cir. Dec. 14, 2017)

In a rare federal court of appeals opinion in this area, the Third Circuit has occasion to decide whether a hospital employee manifested a religious (versus an ethical) objection to getting a flu shot that would be protected by Title VII's religious-accommodation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

Clemens v. Qwest Corp., No. 15-35160 (9th Cir Nov. 3, 2017)

The Ninth Circuit becomes the fourth court of appeals to recognize tax gross-up awards to successful Title VII plaintiff, which recognize (and compensate for) the tax penalty that plaintiff suffer when they receive lump sums of back pay in a single tax year. 

Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Ala., No. 16-13003 (11th Cir. Sept. 7, 2017)

In a potentially important development for family-responsibilities discrimination law, the Eleventh Circuit upholds a $161,319.92 award for a woman who was forced to quit police work because the city would not accommodate her breastfeeding.

Moody v. Atlantic City Bd. of Educ., No. 16-4373 (3d Cir. Sept. 6, 2017)

The Third Circuit holds, in a 2-1 decision, that an individual may be a "supervisor" for purposes of imputing liability to the employer vicariously for sex harassment if they are "tasked with creating a work schedule" for their subordinates.  

McKinney v. Sheriff's Office of Whitley Co., No. 16-4131 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses and remands a Title VII claim for trial that it describes as a potentially "strong case of race discrimination." In particular, it reminds district courts that the "same actor" inference - that a manager who hires Black employees is unlikely to be biased against them - is at most an argument for trial, not a rule for deciding summary judgment.

T-Mobile USA, Incorporated v. NLRB, No. 16-60284 (5th Cir. July 25, 2017)

The Fifth Circuit enforces a National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") order striking down an employer's policy that banned the use of "cameras, camera phones/devices, or recording devices (audio or video) in the workplace."

Alamo v. Bliss, No. 15-2849 (7th Cir. July 20, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit decides a couple of useful things in this Title VII and § 1983 national-origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation case, set in a City of Chicago firehouse. First, it holds that even petty activity such as lunch-stealing may constitute part of a hostile work environment when the entire pattern of conduct is considered together. Second, even such tedious activities as constantly shifting an employee from site to site, and intensively challenging fitness for duty after medical leave, may constitute materially adverse employment actions.

Castleberry v. STI Group, No. 16-3131 (3d Cir. July 14, 2017)

The Third Circuit holds that a manager's single use of a racial slur, combined with a threat to fire a Black employee, may be enough all by itself to constitute a hostile work environment under Section 1981.

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