Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 10, 2017
An employer that refused to hire an applicant based on a positive pre-employment drug test was entitled to summary judgment on the applicant’s race discrimination and civil conspiracy claims despite the applicant’s argument that the company safety officer cancelled his split specimen drug test due to discriminatory animus, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Turner v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, Case No. 15-3263 (7th Cir. Apr. 24, 2017).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • May 02, 2017
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”), along with several business associations, has requested that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) rescind its prior approval of the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 Report requiring disclosure of pay data information by gender, race, and occupational category due to the cost and time associated with compliance. The Chamber’s request was backed by the Society for Human Resource Management, National Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, National Automobile Dealers Association, and others.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • April 25, 2017
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has announced a $1.95 million settlement of retaliation claims made against the Chicago-based American Dental Association, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The large dollar settlement underscores the risk employers face from such claims, and the value of having anti-retaliation policies in place. It also highlights the need to provide proper training to allow supervisors to recognize and address the circumstances leading to such claims.
Ogletree Deakins • April 10, 2017
In Carvalho-Grevious v. Delaware State University, No. 15-3521 (March 21, 2017), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an important evidentiary question: What evidence must a plaintiff adduce as part of a prima facie case of retaliation to survive a motion for summary judgment?
Ogletree Deakins • March 24, 2017
Over the last couple of weeks, much of the media in Washington, D.C., has turned its attention to the new director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), former South Carolina congressman Mick Mulvaney. This is because Mulvaney is in charge of advancing the administration’s first federal budget proposal, as well as coordinating Republicans’ efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA). What goes unnoticed, however, is that Mulvaney and his office will play a crucial role in the employer community’s efforts to ease the regulatory burdens that have piled up over the last several years. Here’s just one way how.
Nexsen Pruet • March 01, 2017
A recent decision from a federal court in New York serves as a reminder to employers in South Carolina and North Carolina of just how difficult an employee’s allegations of retaliation can be to challenge, and how employers successfully can defend themselves against a discrimination claim—only to lose on the retaliation claim based on the same facts.
Fisher Phillips • January 18, 2017
There has been significant buzz lately regarding the risk of discrimination in the sharing economy. Not only has the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its intent to prioritize protections in the on-demand economy in its recently published Strategic Enforcement Plan, but sharing economy businesses have faced additional scrutiny surrounding response times to customers of different races.
Fisher Phillips • January 11, 2017
January 2017 is one of those rare months including a Friday the 13th, which might bring to mind a horror movie where a seemingly vanquished killer somehow rises to his feet – once again! – to wreak havoc on his stunned victims. Just like an undead specter rising from the grave long after you think it’s been killed off, an employer recently faced a retaliation claim despite the fact that a 13-year gap existed between the alleged protected activity and the adverse action.
Phelps Dunbar LLP • December 21, 2016
Two separate panels of the Fifth Circuit issued decisions this month within three days of one another, ruling on emotional distress damages in employment cases. The rulings were somewhat inconsistent – the first (Vaughan v. Anderson Regional Medical Center) holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under the ADEA, and the second (Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC, et al) holding that emotional distress damages are recoverable in FLSA retaliation cases. The latter case does not cite to the first, and the two panels were made up of completely different judges. Both cases, however, cited to longstanding Fifth Circuit precedent Dean v. American Security Insurance Co, and rely on similar statutory language. While the two new opinions do not directly conflict with one another, they are somewhat in tension.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • December 08, 2016
Predicting what any new presidential administration will or won’t do based on campaign statements is risky. Nonetheless, we may glean some insights. For instance, of the equal employment opportunity priorities mentioned during the campaign, the President-elect and his daughter, Ivanka, spent time talking about wage equality and childcare. For example, on the news program, 60 Minutes, Ms. Trump stated, “I’ve said throughout the campaign that I am very passionate about certain issues. And that I want to fight for them… Wage equality, childcare. These are things that are very important for me… Really promoting more opportunities for women.”