by Rosemary B. Guiltinan

The U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals  recently upheld a jury verdict in favor of an Egyptian-American Muslim employee of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) who claimed the BSA denied him career advancement opportunities based on his national origin and religion. The court upheld the verdict because the employer failed to show the evidence was “overwhelmingly inconsistent” with the jury’s decision.

Background

Kamal Aly, an Egyptian-American Muslim, began working as a district executive for the BSA’s Mohegan Council in August 2001. During his first two years with the BSA, he completed two professional development trainings and received positive annual performance reviews. read more…

by Taylor Chapman

In many situations, it is relatively easy to understand what constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. For instance, you cannot refuse to hire an applicant because she is a woman or treat a female employee differently from a male employee because of her sex. The legal requirements become more uncertain, however, when an employee claims you engaged in unlawful sex stereotyping, as one Virginia employer recently learned.

What is sex stereotyping?

read more…

by Brandon Gearhart

A recent decision from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee employers) illustrates the importance of the interactive process when making employment decisions about a disabled worker. The court returned a previously dismissed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim to the lower court, in part because the employer made a decision regarding disability accommodations without consulting the disabled worker. 

Facts

Nicholas Keith was born deaf and is unable to speak. After receiving lifeguard certification from Oakland County, Michigan, he applied for a lifeguard position at the Oakland County wave pool in 2007. Katherine Stavale, Oakland County’s recreational specialist, offered Keith a lifeguard job conditioned on him passing a physical exam. Dr. Paul Work performed the exam. After looking at Keith’s medical records, Work stated, “He’s deaf; he can’t be a lifeguard.” He failed Keith because he didn’t believe he could function independently as a lifeguard. read more…

by Rebecca A. Kopp

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has expanded the practices that may be considered protected religious views. The court refused to dismiss a vegan employee’s federal and state religious discrimination claims and permitted the parties to engage in further discovery (the pretrial exchange of evidence relevant to the case).

Facts 

Sakile Chenzira worked as a customer service representative at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center for more than a decade. She routinely refused her employer’s requirement that hospital employees receive an annual flu shot. As a practicing vegan, she objected to the flu shot because the vaccine is grown in chicken eggs and vegans do not ingest any animal products or by-products. read more…

by Rich Voelbel

Work-life balance is a reality that most employers have come to accept. Employees have children, and occasionally, they need to take days off to care for them when they are sick. While managers may not always like the fact that their employees have to miss work, as the case below demonstrates, it’s best to keep remarks about an employee’s children to yourself, especially when they’re directed at only one gender.

Background

Judge David S. Doty of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota recently denied an employer’s request to dismiss an employee’s sex discrimination claim. For four years, Shannon Swider worked in various positions for Hologic, Inc. According to Swider, her manager made comments about her family life and treated her differently than her male counterparts. After she took two days off work, he remarked that her young children were preventing her from performing her job effectively. read more…

by Jason R. Mau

Over the last three years, members of Congress have attempted to amend the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to improve and ensure its protection of individuals subject to pay discrimination on the basis of gender. Originally approved in January 2009 by the House of Representatives, the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) failed to gain support in the Senate and was reintroduced in both houses of Congress in the spring of 2011. In June 2012, the bill again failed to gain the necessary support in the Senate.

The reintroduced legislation included provisions that would have enhanced employers’ burden of proof when defending against EPA claims. Those provisions are in addition to proposed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that would allow for enhanced penalties, protection from retaliation for initiating an investigation or discussion of employee wages, programs for negotiation skills training, collection of pay information for research, and establishment of a national award for pay equity in the workplace. read more…

by Brinton Wilkins

Humans are unique in their use of words. With them, we explain the world around us, share our thoughts and feelings, teach, and define ourselves. Therefore, it should be no surprise that words also can injure. Trying to excuse words by saying “I didn’t mean to hurt anybody” or “Everyone says that” usually rings hollow. In the English language, there are few words more opprobrious and hateful than the “n” word. Although segments of pop culture seem to have a conflicted, contradictory, and self-destructive relationship with that word, it should be clear to employers that the word has no place in a modern workplace. Unfortunately, one employer learned that lesson the hard way. read more…

It has been said that the more things change, the more they stay the same. That certainly applies to the following case involving the employment application of a biological female who identifies as a male. While the scenario might be somewhat unusual, the legal issue is one that has been around for decades: Can you discriminate on the basis of a protected classification of which you are unaware?

Who are you?

The Minneapolis facility of United Parcel Service (UPS) hires approximately 40 of the 200 to 300 applicants who seek a part-time package-handling job every month. Each applicant must complete the online job application and tour a sorting facility to observe the heavy physical work required of the job before he is given an interview. Because of the high turnover rate, interviews last only 10 to 15 minutes and focus mostly on whether the applicant is likely to stay with the company. Afterward, the interviewer codes the candidate’s application as “ready for a second interview” or “rejected” for specific established reasons (e.g., “poor interview responses” or “poor job history”). The company’s electronic records system allows only one code to be entered, even if more than one might apply. read more…

by J. David Kutch

A Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student received permission from the school to use a service dog trained to help her deal with the effects of her psychiatric disorders. However, she failed her classes and was escorted off the campus at times, apparently because two offices at the school had different positions on allowing the dog in class. Sick of the song and dance, the student ended up in court asking for permission to continue bringing her service dog to class. She won.

Although this case didn’t involve a dispute between an employer and employee, the court’s decision has some implications for your compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It’s important to note that the accommodation would likely be the same in an employment case.

read more…

by Nancy Williams

Just as private-sector workers are required to file an administrative charge of discrimination before filing a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal employees also have prefiling requirements. In a disability discrimination case against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the 9th Circuit recently decided that the employee had taken all necessary steps and could proceed with her claim.

Was filing of lawsuit fatally premature?

Mary Bullock was an administrative law judge (ALJ) for the EEOC from 1999 to 2007. She suffers from both multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus. In January 2003, she filed an informal disability discrimination complaint, and four months later, she filed a formal complaint. She claimed the EEOC had failed to accommodate her condition and thus had violated the federal Rehabilitation Act. The informal and formal complaint steps track the requirements of Title VII for federal employee claims. read more…