Email Updates

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

Reminder to Maryland Employers: Reasonable Accommodations For Disabilities Due To Pregnancy Act Takes Effect October 1st

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
09/19/2013
Agency Activity, Employment Discrimination, Pregnancy Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations/Undue Burden
Beginning on October 1, 2013, Maryland employers with 15 or more employees will have to comply with Maryland’s Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities Due to Pregnancy Act.  As previously reported in The Employment Brief, the new law requires employers to explore “all possible means” of providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees, and also establishes new notice requirements.  However, employers do not have to make an...
read more

Employer Triumphs Over EEOC In Background Check Lawsuit

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
09/16/2013
Agency Activity, Employment Discrimination
A Maryland federal court recently skewered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in its disparate impact lawsuit challenging a nationwide employer’s use of background checks on applicants.  EEOC v. Freeman, No. RWT 09cv2573 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2013).  The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, heavily criticizing the EEOC’s shoddy assemblage of statistical data used in its attempt...
read more

Court Dismisses Race Discrimination Claims Against Paula Deen

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
08/14/2013
Employment Discrimination
Over the past few months, there has been a great deal of media attention focused on racially offensive statements allegedly made by Paula Deen, the renowned restaurateur and celebrity cooking show host. Deen's career and public reputation went south (so to speak) earlier this summer after her deposition in a race discrimination lawsuit filed by Lisa Jackson, the white general manager of a restaurant owned by Paula Deen and her family. In the...
read more

State Attorneys General Challenge EEOC Guidance on Background Checks

Clifford Geiger
Clifford Geiger
08/01/2013
Agency Activity, Employment Discrimination, State Law
Over the past two years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken an increasingly narrow view of when employers can use criminal background information to exclude a job applicant.  In April 2012, the EEOC  issued  Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002, which  suggests that employers must  conduct an individualized assessment of each job applicant’s criminal background and show “a demonstrably tight nexus” between the criminal...
read more

Fired Employee Files Suit Claiming Obesity Is A Disability Under ADA

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/26/2013
Disability & Leave, Employment Discrimination
A former employee filed suit in federal court against a Missouri car dealership last week claiming he was fired for being severely obese.  Whittaker v. America’s Car-Mart, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00108, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiff Joseph Whittaker claims that America’s Car Mart, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it fired him because of his weight, taking the position that his severe...
read more

“Election of Remedies” Clause Constitutes Per Se Retaliation, Getting Employer and Union in Trouble

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
07/19/2013
Disability & Leave, Employment Discrimination, Labor Law
Employers sometimes have policies that, while they seem sensible, run afoul of the law.  One such area is in the investigation of discrimination claims.  Some employers have a policy that says something like “we will investigate a concern that you bring to our attention, but we will stop doing that if you go file with the EEOC.  Then we will let the EEOC investigate.  The reasoning behind the policy is that it will avoid a duplication of...
read more

Male Employee Who Wears “Girly” Shirts May Have Sexual Harassment Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/19/2013
Employment Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, State Law
A federal district court in California recently held that a male state investigator teased for wearing “girly” clothes stated a claim of sex-based harassment in violation of Title VII and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.  Felix v. Calif. Dep’t of Developmental Servs., No. 1:13-cv-00561 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2013).  Robert Felix worked as a special investigator at a California state agency.  In April 2013, Felix and his fellow...
read more

Law School Has Right To Decide The Qualifications It Wants In Its Professors

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/02/2013
Age Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Public Sector Employment Law
Earlier this year, the Court of Specials Appeals found in favor of the University of Baltimore School of Law (UB) in an age discrimination suit brought by Donald Dobkin.  Dobkin v. Univ. of Balt. Sch. of Law, 210 Md. App. 580 (2013). In 2009, Dobkin applied to become a professor at the University.  Instead of hiring the then 56-year-old Dobkin (or hundreds of other applicants), UB hired a 32-year-old female for the position.  Dobkin then sued the...
read more

The Supreme Court Speaks: Title VII "Supervisors" Must Have The Power To Implement Tangible Employment Actions

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
Employer Liability, Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
In Vance v. Ball State University, in a 5-4 decision issued June 24, 2013, on the same day and by the same majority that decided the Nassar case limiting Title VII retaliation claims to “but for” violations, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employers another victory by defining, precisely and narrowly, who is a “supervisor” for liability purposes in cases of Title VII unlawful harassment. Under Title VII, employer liability for harassment...
read more

GINA Gets Her First Class Action Suit

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
05/19/2013
Employment Discrimination, Genetic Information
The Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted in 2008 and became effective for employment purposes on November 21, 2009.  GINA makes it unlawful for an employer to “request, require, or purchase” an individual’s genetic information, which includes the “manifestation of a disease or disorder” in the individuals’ family members.  While there is a sizeable list of prohibitions that GINA has put in place, the biggest...
read more
Email Updates

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