After being sued for race discrimination, an employer/company filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that a single use of the n-word was not sufficient to state a claim for hostile work environment. The lower court agreed and dismissed the case. But in a decision of which employers should be aware, the
Maria Danaher
Maria Greco Danaher regularly represents and counsels companies in employment related matters. She specializes in representing management in labor relations and employment litigation, and in training, counseling, and advising human resource departments and corporate management on these topics. Maria has first chaired trials in both federal and state courts since 1986, and regularly instructs attorneys and students in issues related to trial tactics.
Company’s reaction to claim of unequal pay is a “don’t do” check-list for employers.
Complaints of unequal pay should not be taken lightly, and certainly should not be met with an immediate adverse employment action. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently reinstated a female office worker’s equal pay retaliation claim that had been dismissed by a federal district court, and is allowing that case to move…
Employer pays $100,000 for 30 minutes of employment after firing pregnant applicant.
Want a road map on how not to react to a successful applicant who announces her pregnancy immediately after receiving an offer letter? Look at the reaction of one prospective employer in Florida, who recently settled a legal claim on that issue. EEOC v. Brown & Brown of Florida, Inc., MDFL, No. 6:16-cv-1326-Orl-37DCI, Consent Decree …
Employee’s failure to actively engage in interactive process supports dismissal of ADA claim.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires both a disabled employee and her employer to work interactively to identify reasonable accommodations for the disabled employee. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has underscored that requirement by dismissing the claims of an individual who, it found, failed to engage fully in the interactive process.…
FMLA is not a tool an employee can use to delay or avoid a termination.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) makes it unlawful for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise” an individual’s rights under the FMLA, or to retaliate against an employee for the exercise of rights under the FMLA. However, according to at least one federal appellate…
Title IX may provide legal basis for sexual harassment claims.
The 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may have expanded the mechanisms available for individuals who plan to bring claims of sexual harassment or discrimination against an employer that conducts educational programs or activities, specifically including private teaching hospitals.
Recently, the Third Circuit found that a private teaching hospital could be held liable – under…
Internet scammers are trolling for employee data . . . and HR inadvertently may be providing it.
Every January 31, employers who are scrambling to meet the deadline for mailing W-2 forms to their employees have discovered that scammers are trolling for that very information.
This year, a new iteration of an old W-2 phishing scam has surfaced. In the 2017 version, scammers posing as a company’s CEO or other high-level executive…
Who decides whether a job function is “essential” for purposes of the ADA?
In a recent unpublished opinion, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a carefully considered and well-structured instruction for those who want to further understand the concept of “essential functions” of a position in cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bagwell v. Morgan County Commission, No. 15-15274 (11th Cir., January…
Employee exceeding 12 weeks of FMLA leave loses right to job restoration.
According to a federal judge in Pennsylvania, employees are not entitled to the job restoration protections of the FMLA after the statutory leave has expired, even where the employee has received permission from the employer to extend that leave. Wevodau v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, 2017 BL 1246 (MDPA, January 4, 2017).
Kevin Wevodau,…
Are discussions between in-house counsel and former employees always protected by attorney-client privilege? One court says No.
The attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct to most attorneys, especially those attorneys who hold in-house positions. The privilege often – and appropriately – is asserted by in-house counsel to protect communications that were conducted with certain individuals while those individuals were employed by the company, regardless of their employment status at the moment.
However, what happens…