Brody and Associates, LLC • August 15, 2018
A former car salesman at Lee Partyka Chevrolet in Hamden, Connecticut, is suing the dealership claiming he lost his job after complaining about the general manager’s alleged use of the word “boy” to refer to his black employees. In his suit, plaintiff Dennis Bellamy alleges the dealership violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by terminating him because he spoke up for what he perceived was a hostile work environment resulting from his general manager’s racially disparaging language.
The recent incident at a Philadelphia Starbucks holds valuable lessons for employers when it comes to managing and training a workforce. What was a bad situation quickly became a terrible one as the shop’s manager called the cops and had two black men arrested for trespassing when they were arguably waiting for a friend at the store.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • August 22, 2017
Cindy-Ann Thomas and her guests Littler Shareholder Allan King, and author and historian Carroll “C.R.” Gibbs provide a multi-faceted examination of the label “People of Color.” In this podcast, Cindy-Ann, Allan, and C.R. address the following, head-on:
XpertHR • August 13, 2017
A supervisor's single use of the "n-word" is sufficiently severe to support a hostile work environment, racial harassment lawsuit, a federal appellate court has ruled. In Castlebury v. STI Group, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals explained that the proper standard to apply in hostile environment cases is whether discrimination is severe or pervasive, rather than pervasive and regular.
Ogletree Deakins • August 01, 2017
After being sued for race discrimination, an employer/company filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that a single use of the n-word was not sufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment.
Ogletree Deakins • June 07, 2017
In a recent decision, Buntin v. City of Boston, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no implied private right of action for damages against state actors under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. In reaching that conclusion, the court of appeals determined that Congress, when it amended the statute in 1991, did not overrule the Supreme Court of the United States’ 1989 holding in Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989), that Section 1981 affords no such right of action and that 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is the exclusive source for federal damages actions against state actors alleged to have violated Section 1981. The First Circuit’s ruling in Buntin is consistent with that of eight other federal appellate courts, and the Ninth Circuit remains the only federal appeals court to have held that Congress overruled Jett by amending the statute.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • May 24, 2017
One strike, you’re out?
Jackson Lewis P.C. • January 06, 2017
A municipal employer that conducted hair follicle drug testing on police officers was not entitled to summary judgment on a Title VII disparate impact claim, because a reasonable jury could conclude that an alternative to hair follicle drug testing would have met the employer’s legitimate needs, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
XpertHR • August 14, 2016
Employers should prepare for the possibility that the Gadsden Flag, which shows the words "Don't Tread on Me" below a coiled rattlesnake, could be considered a racist symbol by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Ogletree Deakins • August 08, 2016
Most—if not all—employers are aware that federal and state laws preclude employment discrimination based upon the race or national origin of an employee, and they know that illegal activity can include both discriminatory actions and biased statements. Most employers, however, are unaware that certain of these laws also preclude discrimination by a customer, client, or patient of an employer against an employee.