Employment Law Newsletter - January/February 2008
Here’s a brief glance at what you’ll find in the January/February issue…
PUNITIVE DAMAGES REQUIRE MALICE OR RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE
The Sixth Circuit ruled that an employer wasn’t off the hook for punitive damages for sexual harassment, even though it claimed that it hadn’t acted with the requisite malice or reckless indifference. This article explains why the court reinstated a jury’s $75,000 punitive-damages reward to an employee.
Parker v. General Extrusions Inc., 491 F.3d 596 (6th Cir. 2007)
EMPLOYER'S HARASSMENT LIABILITY WHEN VICTIM FAILS TO FOLLOW REPORT PROCEDURE
The Seventh Circuit answered this question in the affirmative. The court reinstated the employee’s suit, finding that a jury could reasonably find that the employer had acted negligently in discovering or remedying the alleged harassment.
Bombaci v. Journal Community Publishing Group, 482 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2007)
ADA INTERACTIVE PROCESS CLARIFIED
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an interactive process between an employer and an employee who requests an accommodation because of a disability. This article reports the Eighth Circuit’s detailed description of the process. The article also discusses, in a sidebar, why the ADA doesn’t require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant position if that would violate the employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory policy to hire the most qualified candidate.
EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007)
Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, 493 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007)
REVERSE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION ALLEGED
The question before the Ninth Circuit was whether a plaintiff could maintain her claim of reverse religious discrimination for her employer’s failure to promote her. Reversing a grant of summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had presented evidence showing that she was more qualified for the job than the promoted person and that a reasonable fact-finder could find that her evidence made the employer’s proffered reasons “unworthy of credence.”
Noyes v. Kelly Services, 488 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007)
Employment Law Newsletter - November/December 2007
Here’s a brief glance at what you’ll find in the November/December issue…
PRETEXTUAL REASON FOR JOB REASSIGNMENT LEADS TO INFERENCE OF DISCRIMINATION
This article discusses the questions before the District of Columbia Circuit: When does a job reassignment constitute a demotion? And when can gender discrimination be inferred from an employer’s explanation for an adverse employment action?
Czekalski v. Peters, No. 05-5221 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2007).
ACCOMODATING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
What constitutes an undue employer hardship?
This article looks at a case in which the Seventh Circuit had to decide how far a pharmacy should go to accommodate the religious beliefs of a pharmacist who refused to fill or handle birth-control prescriptions.
Noesen v. Medical Staffing Network, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 1068 (7th Cir. 2007).
AVOIDING LIABILITY FOR HOSTILE-WORK-ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS
Employers generally are liable for a supervisor’s sexual harassment if it is severe and pervasive enough to result in a hostile work environment. But an affirmative defense is available to employers. This article explains why the Eleventh Circuit upheld an employer’s affirmative defense.
Baldwin v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama, 480 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2007).
ADA’S INTERACTIVE PROCESS CLARIIFIED
What is required of employers in the interactive process that they must engage in with employees seeking accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act? This article explains why the Sixth Circuit held that the employer had not acted in bad faith.
Kleiber v. Honda of America, 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007). Novella v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., No. 06-12919, 2007 WL 812058 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2007).
|
