Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

UPS Manager’s Disability Does Not Excuse Perceived Racist Comment

Clifford Geiger
Clifford Geiger
08/09/2015
Disability & Leave, Employment Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations/Undue Burden
Christopher Schaffhauser, a white male, sued United Parcel Services (UPS) after he was demoted from manager to supervisor for saying he would hit an African-American coworker so hard it would "knock the black off him." Schaffhauser’s lawsuit asserted race discrimination and a failure to accommodate his medical condition.  This note focuses on the ADA failure to accommodate claim. The Court described the circumstances leading to Schaffhauser’s...
read more

Ledbetter Act Does Not Extend Time to Bring Demotion Claims

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/31/2015
Employment Discrimination
In litigation, as in many other parts of life, timing is everything. In a post earlier this week, we discussed the issues surrounding lawsuits filed after the resolution of EEOC and state agency charges. A similar issue came before a New York federal court recently and was met with a similar outcome: a plaintiff who files a claim too late has nobody but him or herself to blame. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“Ledbetter Act”) was...
read more

Plaintiff Bears Burden of Maintaining Correct Address with EEOC

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/29/2015
Agency Activity, Employment Discrimination
An individual who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or similar state agency is required to provide the agency with his or her contact information, including a mailing address and phone number, so that the agency can notify him or her of any developments, including the outcome of the charge. Current regulations require the individual to notify the agency “of any change in address and . . . any prolonged absence from that current address...
read more

EEOC Rules Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Violates Title VII

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/23/2015
Agency Activity, Employment Discrimination
An employee alleges a claim for discrimination based on sexual orientation but sexual orientation isn’t mentioned under Title VII. Does the employee have a viable Title VII claim? According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) recent opinion in Complainant v. Foxx, E.E.O.C., Appeal No. 0120133080 (7/16/15), the answer is “Yes.” In the view of the EEOC, “allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation...
read more

Federal Court Permits Perceived Religion Claim To Proceed

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/24/2015
Employment Discrimination, Religious Discrimination
Reasoning that discrimination based on an employer’s perception of an employee’s religion is no different than discrimination because of an employee’s actual religion, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently permitted an employee’s perceived religion discrimination claims to proceed to trial. Kallabat v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., No. 2:2012-cv-15470 (E.D. Mich. June 18, 2015). Basil Kallabat began working...
read more

SUPREME COURT HOLDS WEARING OF RELIGIOUS SCARVES IS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Peter Saucier
Peter Saucier
06/03/2015
Employment Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
Abercrombie & Fitch maintains a dress code for employees known as its Look Policy. Headwear is not allowed under the policy because it is “too informal for Abercrombie’s desired image.” Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf, interviewed for an available position for which she was found to be qualified. Still, Elauf was not hired because the District Manager, who was told by another manager that she thought Elauf’s...
read more

Title VII Retaliation Claims Hinging On Circumstantial Evidence Remain Governed By McDonnell Douglas

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
05/29/2015
Employment Discrimination, Retaliation
Two years ago, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court heightened the causation standard for employees claiming retaliation based on direct evidence (such as explicitly discriminatory statements made by supervisors) under Title VII.  Plaintiffs must prove "but for" causation. What about the situation in which an employee relies solely on circumstantial evidence? Does Nassar’s “but-for” standard apply to...
read more

Fourth Circuit Orders Racial Class Action Claim at Steel Plant to Proceed

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
05/26/2015
Class Actions, Employment Discrimination, Race Discrimination
Nearly eight years after the lawsuit was first filed, the Fourth Circuit ordered in Brown v. Nucor Corporation that workers claiming systemic racial discrimination in a South Carolina steel plant’s promotion decisions be permitted to proceed as a class action. The Nucor steel plant in South Carolina employs just over 600 workers in six production departments. There were a total of 71 black employees at the plant, but only one black supervisor. In...
read more

New Fourth Circuit Standard: Single Incident Sufficient For Title VII Hostile Workplace Harassment Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
05/14/2015
Employment Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation
Sometimes, once is enough.  In a just issued en banc decision that overturns established circuit precedent, the Fourth Circuit held that a single workplace incident was sufficiently severe to trigger Title VII's protection. In Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 4th Cir. No 13-1473 (May 7, 2015), an African-American hotel worker was fired after she complained that a white employee had called her a “porch monkey” twice within 24 hours....
read more

Supreme Court to Decide When the Filing Period for a Constructive Discharge Claim Begins

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
04/28/2015
Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
On April 27 the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Green v. Donahoe to determine whether, under federal employment discrimination law, the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held.  See Green v. Donahoe, 760 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir....
read more
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.