http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/22 Articles discussing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:07:39 EST en-us http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=7076 Article: 7076 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a previous issue we took a look at several pending laws that would drastically change the labor and employment scene ("Cute Titles for Bad Laws" by John Zenor, Labor Letter, May 2008). This month we'll review a few more pieces of pending legislation. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6934 Article: 6934 Fri, 23 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Human resources records are changing. Less than five years ago, the most common type of HR record was a paper personnel file, usually containing standard categories of paper documents. Companies not only employ online recruiting and application processes and enterprise-wide personnel databases, but many day-to-day employee communications take the form of email or instant messaging. As these records become more prevalent in the daily functions performed by a human resources department, they also become more important in employment-related litigation. The changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that took effect in December 2006 have received much press but little praise. Interestingly, many of the key decisions relating to electronic records, both before and after the rule changes, were in the area of employment disputes. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6911 Article: 6911 Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Two recent court decisions have further defined the contours of the "ministerial exception," which prohibits courts from addressing employment claims brought against religious organizations when the decisions were based on the organization's religious principals or practices. Archdiocese of Washington v. Moersen demonstrates that this exception has its limits; Klouda v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary shows just how far the exception can be applied. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6888 Article: 6888 Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) The Supreme Court has issued several employment related decisions already this year. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6876 Article: 6876 Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Surviving Discrimination Claims. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6857 Article: 6857 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) In a unanimous decision on February 26, 2008, in the case Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, the United States Supreme Court held that a trial court can permit a plaintiff employee to introduce evidence that other employees have also experienced discrimination, provided that the testimony—also known as “me too” evidence—is relevant to the case and its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of its prejudicial effect before the jury. In so ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that “me too” evidence is neither per se admissible nor per se inadmissible but, rather, the trial court must make a determination weighing the evidence's relevance, probative value, and prejudicial effect. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6843 Article: 6843 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) An African-American employee, who tested positive for drug use, failed to prove her race and disability discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 (the Civil War-era Civil Rights Act barring racial discrimination), and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled. Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., No. 06-15400 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2008). The plaintiff alleged that the employer violated Title VII and Section 1981 by failing to promote and cross-train her, and retaliating after she complained by directing her to take drug tests. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6834 Article: 6834 Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Experienced Human Resources professionals know this dilemma all too well – slackers and malcontents who have learned to use the threat of retaliation claims as a sword instead of a shield. Besides failing to perform their duties, these employees regularly grouse or nitpick, almost daring their supervisors to intervene. Meanwhile, frustrated supervisors put off dealing with poor performance or disruptive conduct. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6795 Article: 6795 Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) Is an intake questionnaire filed with the EEOC sufficient to be considered a discrimination charge? It depends. On February 27, the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 vote in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki that a former employee who filed an intake questionnaire supported by a detailed affidavit had filed a charge that entitled her to file an ADEA suit. The Supreme Court decided that a document filed with the EEOC that requests action to protect the employee’s rights or to settle a dispute with the employer constitutes a discrimination charge under the ADEA. http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6794 Article: 6794 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EST elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network) On February 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Ellen Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221. Employers had hoped that the case would provide a categorical rule barring so-called "me, too" testimony-that is, testimony offered by a plaintiff's co-workers who are not parties to the suit, claiming discrimination by different supervisors who had no role in the challenged employment decision. Instead, the Supreme Court held that trial court judges have discretion to admit or exclude such testimony, depending on the particular facts of the case. The Court's decision is problematic for employers, because it leaves open the door to inflammatory, hard-to-refute testimony by disgruntled co-workers in employment discrimination cases.