Claiming that frequent restroom breaks were required by a pregnancy-related medical condition, a former employee’s claims were allowed to proceed under the Americans with Disability Act, but not Title VII. In Wadley v. Kiddie Academy International, Inc., plaintiff alleged that the employer discriminated against her because of a pregnancy-related disability by discharging her for
Title VII
Epic Impact: Will the Federal Arbitration Act Preempt Prohibitions on Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims?
With the increased attention being paid to the #MeToo movement and the existence of federal law that provides capped remedies and permits mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims,, states and cities are enacting legislation to create greater legal rights for sexual harassment claimants For example, New York recently enacted legislation that, among other things, prohibits…
Employee Complaints Of Pay Inequity Can Trigger Protected Activity Even With No Mention Of “Sex Discrimination”
In Mumm v. Charter Township of Superior, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Plaintiff is entitled to a trial where her employer began the termination process on the same day she threatened suit over a difference in pay between her and a male counterpart even though she did…
Jury May Find Pregnancy Discrimination Where Employer Refused To Assign Work To Avoid Injury To Pregnant Worker
Pregnancy discrimination can arise from an employer’s effort to “protect” a pregnant worker from harm, just as it can from other adverse actions. In Cameron v. NYC Dept. of Educ., 15-cv-9900 (S.D.N.Y), it was alleged that plaintiff no longer received teaching assignments after her pregnancy became visible and known. According to plaintiff, the principal…
That’s What Friends Are For: Federal Court Extends Retaliation Protection to Employee’s Friend
Picture this scenario: Employee A brings a sexual harassment claim against Company. Employee B, who is friendly with Employee A believes the Company has taken adverse actions against her because of her friendship with Employee A, such as transferring her to a different location where she was denied her own office for six months and…
Workstation Relocation Creates Viable Claim for Retaliation
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently permitted a Title VII retaliation claim to proceed to trial based on allegations of retaliatory relocation of a worker’s workstation. In Massaquoi v. District of Columbia, the plaintiff was relocated to a new workstation one month after he complained to his supervisor about…
Refusal By Employer to Remove Letter of Reprimand from Employee’s Personnel File Creates Viable Claim for Retaliation
In Munive v. Fairfax County School Board, the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that an employer’s refusal to rescind a disciplinary notice issued after claimant filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the consequent loss of a promotion, could constitute an adverse action sufficient to create a bona fide retaliation claim. As…
Rescinding Termination May Not Defeat Retaliation Claim
Proving that non-economic damages and perhaps attorney’s fees are driving forces in litigation, constructive discharge clams were asserted and survived summary judgment in a federal district court action in Oregon. The Court’s ruling permitted a plaintiff’s retaliation claim to survive summary judgment even though the employer rescinded the termination and rehired plaintiff within 24 hours…
The Weinstein Effect: Importance of Anti-Harassment and Anti-Discrimination Training
It seems as if a report of workplace sexual harassment or sexual battery is published nearly daily. While the media focuses upon notable public figures, workplace harassment can occur at any company. In many of those reports, it seems that the environment was not conducive to reporting the alleged misconduct or to obtaining an internal…
11th Circuit: Rights of Breastfeeding Employees Protected by Federal Law
On September 7, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit in Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, 16-13003 held that breastfeeding is covered under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). In Hicks, the plaintiff was a police officer with the Tuscaloosa Police Department. Hicks’ doctor recommended that the Plaintiff be considered for alternative duties because the ballistic vest could cause …