By Jeremy M. Brenner

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state employer such as a university from discriminating against applicants and current employees based on their political beliefs or affiliations except in very limited instances. If an applicant or employee can demonstrate that her political views or associations caused a state employer to make an adverse employment decision (e.g., refusal to hire, termination, or failure to promote), the employer must prove it would have taken the same action regardless of the individual’s political views. In a recent decision, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) explained what constitutes unlawful “political discrimination” and how state employers can prevent it, particularly in a politically charged election year.

Facts

read more…

By Jeanine Poole

It may seem that requiring a high-school diploma for a job is a correct answer. However, a recent “informal discussion letter” from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that you may need to do more studying before making that choice.

Background

In October 2011, the state of Tennessee wrote the EEOC, asking whether “the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), prohibits the state of Tennessee from requiring students with learning disabilities to take ‘Gateway tests’ or ‘end-of-course assessments’ in order to receive their high-school diplomas.” The EEOC initially responded by referring the state to the Tennessee Department of Education. However, the EEOC then took the opportunity to address one statement in the letter that raised employment-related concerns for the agency under Title I of the ADA. We want to ensure you are aware of the agency’s position on the matter. read more…

By Donna Eich Brooks

The headline of this article was worded very specifically. You may have seen write-ups on a recent opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the federal appeals court for Alabama, Florida, and Georgia) that announced some seismic shift in the law like “Transgendered persons protected from discrimination” or “Getting a sex change is now protected.” Racy headlines are good for drawing attention. But in this case, it’s important to focus on what the decision really stands for: You are on dangerous ground when you start trying to mandate how femininely or masculinely someone should act.

To Everything There Is a Season . . .

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn (although her name changes throughout her story, we’ll refer to her as “Glenn”) was born a biological male named Glenn Morrison. From the time he hit puberty, Glenn felt he was a woman, and in 2005, he was diagnosed with gender identity disorder. That same year, he started taking steps to transition from male to female under medical supervision. read more…

By Susan W. Kline

In addition to prohibiting discrimination against qualified employees and applicants with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against someone, regardless of whether he has a disability, because of his known relationship or association with a disabled person. The disabled person with whom the employee or applicant is associated need not be a family member for the protection to apply. The focus is on whether the employer treated the applicant or employee worse than others based on his relationship or association with a disabled person. Several recent court decisions involving “association” claims under the ADA illustrate how these protections operate.

Three Types of Claims

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has defined three distinct types of association discrimination claims under the ADA. read more…

By Megan E. Snyder

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down a decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a landmark case involving 1.5 million female current and former Wal-Mart employees who attempted to challenge the retail giant’s employment practices. Essentially, the women complained that local stores have too much discretion in making decisions about compensation and promotions, resulting in numerous discriminatory employment decisions. The case redefines (and narrows) a key requirement to certification of class-action suits ― that is, commonality among the members of the proposed class. The Court’s decision offers some relief to employers facing class-action wage and hour litigation suits.

General Class-Action Requirements

read more…

By Dinita L. James

In the case of Collins v. Brewer, a federal judge from Alaska, deciding a case from Arizona, barred the state’s attempt to do away with benefits for same-sex domestic partners of state employees. Earlier this year, there was an argument on the case before a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona’s federal appellate court), to which Governor Jan Brewer and the state had appealed.

On September 6, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the lower court was right, with Judge Mary M. Schroeder, who formerly served on the Arizona Court of Appeals, writing the opinion for a unanimous court. Thus, state employees with same-sex domestic partners will keep their benefits for the time being at least. State employees lost coverage for their opposite-sex domestic partners in January 2011.

read more…

By Sharolyn Whiting-Ralston

In today’s world, employers face cultural and faith issues in the workplace. To further complicate matters, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has begun paying more attention to those issues. A recent case out of Tulsa, Oklahoma, serves as a reminder about your obligations when taking into account cultural or religious differences among employees and customers.

In July, a young Tulsa woman received a $20,000 jury verdict against fashion giant Abercrombie & Fitch. The award came after the judge in the case determined she had been the victim of unlawful discrimination because Abercrombie failed to accommodate her religious beliefs.

read more…

Faced with racially motivated workplace killings, reporters from ABC’s Primetime Live sniffing around your facility, and a spate of race discrimination lawsuits, cracking down on racial harassment might be a good thing, right? Maybe so in some utopian world of rationality and logic, but we live and work “down the rabbit hole.” In our world, terminating a supervisor for sending a racist joke will earn you a jury trial for a race discrimination claim filed by the sacked supervisor. If you haven’t lost your appetite yet, read on for the latest from the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

History

read more…

A recent case from the federal trial court in Gulfport, Mississippi, dealt with a certified nursing assistant (CNA) who claimed she was discriminated against based on religion. She alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and fired for reporting religious harassment. The court discussed some interesting points in its decision.

Facts

read more…

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you are prohibited from discriminating against individuals based on several protected classes, including race and national origin. In the following case, an Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH) physician claimed that his ethnicity and national origin prompted the revocation of his hospital privileges. Read on to learn how the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota) handled his claims.

“Sham” Peer Review Leads to Federal Court Case

read more…