Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "D.C. Circuit"

Wilson v. Cox, No. 12-5070 (D.C. Cir. June 3, 2014)

Courts sometimes get confused about who, in our American system of civil justice, gets to decide whether an adverse employment decision was taken because of the employee's age. That decision belongs to a jury. So even if the employer might have had a very good and non-discriminatory reason for eliminating a position, when the principal decision maker also tells the terminated employee that "you didn't come here to work, you came here to retire," it is the jury - not the judge - that is allowed to decide whether it's age discrimination.

Evans v. Sebelius, No. 11-5120 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2013)

The D.C. Circuit remands a federal-sector race discrimination case for trial, where a jury will decide whether the agency's (alleged) inability to keep its story straight about the process it used to interview candidates - and then supposedly cancel a new GS-14 position - demonstrates racial bias.

Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, No. 11-7127 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 5, 2013)

Here's a very important reminder that even a single verbal incident of racial harassment can constitute a hostile work environment, especially if it involves one of the most inflammatory words in the American English idiom. The D.C. Circuit, in a pro se appeal, reverses summary judgment on § 1981 harassment, retaliation and discrimination claims by an African-American Fannie Mae employee, finding a single use of the n-word sufficiently severe to present a triable issue of fact.

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, No. 11-7113 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 14, 2012)

An important part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was reforming the practice of "backloading" pensions - in other words, having the lion's share of contributions come at the end of the employee's career, resulting in smaller retirement payouts. This D.C. Circuit decision, affirming a ruling that the Hilton Hotel pension plan violated the anti-backloading rule, furnishes an important lesson to all persons enrolled in such "defined benefit" plan: keep an eye on your benefit statements.

Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., No. 09-6381 (6th Cir. May 25, 2012) (en banc); Ponce v. Billington, No. 11-5117 (D.C. Cir. May 18, 2012)

In the space of ten days, two circuits issue decisions rejecting a "sole cause" jury instruction under different federal acts. The en banc Sixth Circuit unanimously sweeps away prior circuit law requiring proof under the ADA that disability was the "sole" cause of the discrimination - vacating the jury's verdict under such an instruction - though the judges ultimately divide over what the correct causation standard ought to be. In the D.C. Circuit, the panel rejects a "sole factor" instruction in a Title VII case, distinguishing a prior published decision, but affirms the defense verdict on the ground that the jury charge was overall correct.

Baird v. Gotbaum, No. 10-5421 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 13, 2011)

When you're litigation counsel for a major employer, it is recommended that you do not email the following: "the 11th floor . . . staff in the area of conference room 11E [are advised] to use caution about what they say in halls or open offices," for "[c]ertain people who will be in 11E have a way of twisting and publicizing their litigation induced hallucinations." The D.C. Circuit holds in a pro se appeal that a complaint describing this and other hostile behavior stated a claim for retaliatory harassment under Title VII, reversing a district court order dismissing the complaint.

Bowie v. Maddox, No. 08-5111 (D.C. Cir. June 21, 2011)

Employment-law litigators are well-familiar with the provisions of Title VII and other federal employment statutes that penalize retaliation against an employee who files a lawsuit. But the D.C. Circuit reminds us today that there is another pair of federal civil rights statutes that can cover the same claim, the post-Civil War laws 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(2) and 1986. The court holds that the district court erred in dismissing these claims before trial.

Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., No. 10-2243 (8th Cir. June 17, 2011); Geleta v. Gray, No. 10-7026 (D.C. Cir. June 17, 2011)

Two decisions issued today demonstrate the challenge employers face in managing claims of retaliation. If the summary judgment records in these cases are to be believed, the decision-makers were all-too-eager to announce their intention to get even with employees who made complaints of discrimination.

Rattigan v. Holder, No. 10-5014 (D.C. Cir. June 3, 2011)

To close out the week, how about a case where the employee - an FBI agent stationed in Saudi Arabia in the wake of 9/11  - was accused of wearing Saudi national clothing, thus "creating the impression he had 'gone native,'" and commissioning Saudi colleagues to find him a "suitable wife"? The agent complained that the charges were trumped-up retaliation for his complaints of race discrimination. The D.C. Circuit, remanding the case, discusses the scope of the national-security exception to employment law.

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