Colorado Truck Driver Fails to Climb ADA Proof Hurdle

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/14/2016
As courts have observed, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides a “most favored nation” status to the millions of us who have physical or mental impairments.  Though the law provides a benefit (reasonable accommodation) to disabled individuals that is not required to be given to the general public, this benefit is not without limitations.  For example, as the Tenth Circuit recently affirmed, an individual with a disability must...
read more

EEO Department Head’s Conduct Went Beyond His Job Duties, Was Protected Activity

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/07/2016
In Brooking v. New York Dep’t of Taxation & Fin., No. 1:15 cv-0510 (N.D.N.Y. July 5, 2016), a federal district court in New York ruled that an employee whose job is to report and/or investigate the discrimination complaints of other employees does not engage in protected activity merely by doing those things required of his job.  That same employee does engage in protected activity, however, when he actively supports the complaints of others...
read more

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

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
05/29/2015
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

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

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

Business Judgment Rule Supports Best Buy's Firing of Disabled Employee

Every once in a while, I read a case where my first reaction is:  "how does someone like this ever hold a job?"  That was my reaction when I read the Court's April 10, 2015 decision in Sharp v. Best Buy Co., Inc. out of the United States District Court for Western District of Kentucky. In Sharp, the plaintiff was an auto technician who suffered from narcolepsy and cataplexy. Best Buy accommodated his conditions by excusing him from shift work, and...
read more

College Employee’s ADA and Retaliation Claims Get Past Summary Judgment

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
09/29/2014
Lest any employer need reminding that workplace disability issues (and the ADA/FMLA interplay) are nearly always tricky, a recent decision by Judge Russell proves the point well. In Williams v. Balt. City Cmty. College, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133144 (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2014), the court denied the College’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s “regarded as” disabled and retaliation claims, while granting the motion on plaintiff’s...
read more

Maryland Court Rejects Retaliation Claim Based on Frivolous EEOC Charge

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/10/2014
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland held that employees do not engage in protected activity by refusing to comment about the work of a co-worker and/or that a conversation transpired between a supervisor and employees. Kearns v. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., No. ELH-11-1736 (D. Md., May 23, 2014). Michael Kearns alleged that his former employer, Northrup Grumman Systems Corporation, violated Title VII and the ADEA by...
read more

“But-For This,” “But-For That” -- Multiple “But-For” Causes Possible In Title VII Retaliation Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
12/26/2013
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals delivered Zann Kwan an early Christmas present earlier this month when it concluded that her former employer was not entitled to summary judgment on her retaliation claim.  Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, No. 12-2493 (2d Cir. Dec. 16, 2013).  From April 2007 until September 2008 Zann Kwan worked as the Vice President of Acquisitions for The Andalex Group, a small family-owned real estate management company based...
read more

Employee Who Was Repeatedly Sniffed by Co-Workers and Fired For Swatting a Fly May Bring Retaliation Claim

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
11/26/2013
Accusations of coworkers repeatedly “sniffing and hovering.”  An employee terminated allegedly because she slammed a door and “swatted a fly harder than necessary.”  Sounds like a great place to work, doesn’t it?  This is the alleged work environment in a recent lawsuit decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Royal v. CCC&R Tres Arboles, LLC,  No. 12-11022 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2013). Tonia Royal worked as...
read more

Supreme Court Holds That “But-For” Standard Applies In Title VII Retaliation Cases

Darrell VanDeusen
Darrell VanDeusen
06/25/2013
In one of the biggest employment cases this year, in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court  held that the mixed-motive theory under employment discrimination laws cannot be used in retaliation claims. Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4704 (June 24, 2013).   In Nassar, the Court addressed the federal circuit split that has developed following its 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Servs. Inc., 557 U.S. 168 (2009). A little...
read more
Email Updates

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

Loading