You’ll have to pardon the headline.
I’m not nearly as articulate as the Third Circuit was in yesterday’s opinion in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, using words like “cognizable” and “disproportionate adverse impact.” And, even though the Third Circuit sits in Philadelphia, you won’t find local lingo like “old head” or “jawn” anywhere in the opinion.
Although, I’m pretty sure page 6 has a cheez whiz stain on it.
Well, I suppose you can claim just about anything.
For example ***takes big dose of medication*** I claim god status on the third sun for Rondor. My fourth place finish on the unaired celebrity-blogger episode of Chopped really raised by Rondor grass cred. (No streets on Rondor; only luscious purple grass).
But, when you’re a married school superintendent. And you sneak off during school hours. And you’re sneaking with a female para-educator. Well, sneaking and having sex with the female para-educator in her parked car. You can imagine how this ended.
Well, the former school superintendent — see what I did there? — claimed that his marital status (as opposed to his sexual relationship with a female co-worker who was not his wife) was the reason for his termination.
Thoughts…
Maybe it’s the luck of the draw, but most of the discrimination cases I defend are hostile work environment cases, where an alleged harasser supposedly has made an employee-victim’s life miserable with certain comments, jokes, gestures, touchings, you name it.
Far less often do I encounter disparate-treatment claims. A disparate-treatment claim is one where an employee claims that another similarly-situated employee in another class was treated more favorably because of his/her protected class. For example, a female employee claims that similarly-situated male employees are paid more because they are men.
Sounds like the facts of a recent case decided right in my backyard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case provides a great opportunity to go back to school on what it means to be similarly-situated…after the jump…
And if anyone wants to get me this iPad case for Christmas…
Wait, what was I supposed to be writing about? Oh yeah, national-origin discrimination. I’ll get it together for you after the jump…
Yesterday, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin). You can read a full press release on the updated Enforcement Guidance here.
The press release includes a link to questions and answers about the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance. However, I will summarize the most important points for employers after the jump…
A longtime employee of the Secretary of State’s office in Illinois claimed that two white managers targeted him for termination because he is black, and two white employees, one of whom was his supervisor, received lesser discipline even though they had engaged in the same alleged misconduct.
Is that right? Can a black employee claiming that he was treated differently because of his race compare himself to a white supervisor for purposes of proving his discrimination claim? Find out, after the jump.
Yesterday, the EEOC held a meeting to discuss what it deems a “major national problem”; namely, deliberate discrimination against job seekers based on their race, sex, age, national origin or other prohibited basis.
After the jump, I’ll summarize the meeting and offer some tips for employers to help them stay off of the EEOC’s radar.
Look what just arrived in today’s mail. It’s a charge of discrimination from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Looks like Robert Rank-And-File — the guy Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. fired from data entry — alleges that the company terminated him because he’s disabled.
I’ll show you after the jump.
Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog