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

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

Fifth Circuit Takes Limited View of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Protections

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/18/2013
Over the past two years, several federal courts have wrestled with the scope of whistleblower protections under the Dodd-Frank Act (“DFA”), codified at 15 U.S.C. §78u-6(h).  To date, all of the district courts to address the issue have held that an employee claiming whistleblower retaliation in violation of DFA need not make a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission to be protected by DFA.  As a result, employees alleging that they...
read more

Fourth Circuit Upholds The Affordable Care Act Employer Mandate

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/17/2013
On July 11, 2013, the Fourth Circuit dismissed a constitutional challenge to the employer mandate established by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)), holding that it was a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Cause.  Liberty University Inc. v. Lew, No. 10-2347 (4th Cir. July 11, 2013).  The ACA’s employer mandate requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide health care coverage to their employees and dependents, or...
read more

Failure To Comply With The FMLA’s Recertification Procedures Ruins Employer’s Summary Judgment Chances

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/12/2013
In Hansen v. Fincantieri Marine Group, LLC, (E.D. Wis. June 14, 2013), the employee suffered from depression and had  episodic flare-ups that prevented him from working.  He was approved for intermittent FMLA leave based on his  certification from his health care provider which advised the employee may experience “about four episodes every six months” and which would incapacitate him “two to five days per episode.” Within the first two...
read more

Supreme Court To Review Constitutionality Of Recess Appointments To The NLRB

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/05/2013
As the recent Supreme Court term came to an end, employers were greeted with a couple of favorable decisions.  On June 24th, the Court held that a “but-for” standard applies in Title VII retaliation cases and that to be a “supervisor” under Title VII, an employee must have the power to implement tangible employment actions. That same day, the Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit’s opinion in Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v....
read more

Adminstration Delays Effective Date of ACA Penalties to 2015

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
07/03/2013
On July 2, 2013, the United States Department of Treasury announced in a blog post that the Obama administration will delay key provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  The postponement will delay the employer shared responsibility payment requirements under Code Section 4980H until 2015. The result of this delay is that employers of 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (those working 30 or more hours per week) have another year before they will...
read more

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

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

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

Supreme Court Strikes Down Portion Of Defense Of Marriage Act

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
In an important and far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 570 U.S. ____ (June 26, 2013).  Section III of DOMA defined marriage, for federal purposes, as only between a man and woman.  By striking down this provision, and recognizing the respective states’ definitions of marriage, the Supreme Court opened the door to a panoply of federal...
read more

Race Based Admissions Program Sent Back To Lower Courts

Kollman & Saucier
Kollman & Saucier
06/28/2013
The Supreme Court recently made it a bit more difficult for state universities to utilize race as one of the factors in their undergraduate admission processes. In Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin, et al., No. 11-345, decided June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively punted on the broader issue of whether using race as one of many factors is permissible under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.  Instead,...
read more
Email Updates

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

Loading