Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment

Fact or fiction: Federal law recognizes “reverse age discrimination”

June 14, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Welcome to the inaugural edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post“.

So, I was recently asked whether a younger employee may have a federal age-discrimination claim against his employer if the company treats a similarly-situated older employee better.

The answer is no. In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court in General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) does not forbid discriminatory preference for the old over the young.

Supreme Court limits an employer’s ability to recoup attorney’s fees

June 8, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Thumbnail image for Supreme Court.jpg In an employment discrimination action asserted under federal law, an employee-plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee if the plaintiff prevails. So too may an employer-defendant recover fees if it prevails and the court determines that the plaintiff’s suit is frivolous.

But what happens if an employee-plaintiff asserts multiple claims against an employer-defendant and only some of them are deemed frivolous? What, if anything, may the defendant recover in attorney’s fees?

The answer after the jump…

* * *

“Cat’s Paw” doctrine applies to claims of age bias

June 3, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Wednesday night was crazazy, yo!

I had this dream that was I slaloming down a snowy mountain towards a giant fortress under a hail of gunfire. But the next thing I know, I wake up and I’m falling down this elevator shaft. And, just as I’m about to bite it, I find myself in a car submerged underwater, having just taken a 100-foot fall from the bridge above.

And then I’m in my bed.

It’s 3 am and I am dripping sweat. I tap the Joe Beimel bobblehead on my nightstand — I know I shouldn’t have told you about my totem but, damnit, I love my readers.

Just as I’m starting to get my bearings, what hit me next was ten times as powerful as any three-tiered Inception dream and it kept me up for the rest of the night:

Could the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, in which the Court affirmed the
theory of subordinate bias — or “cat’s paw” — in an
action under USERRA, equally apply to claims brought
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?

But, oh hells-to-the-yeah, the Tenth Circuit, sensing my angst, issued an opinion on Thursday answering all of my questions. So, while I grab my meds, you hit the jump and find out if the cat’s paw doctrine applies to ADEA claims.

* * *

Court dismisses the age bias claims of a pistol-packin’ old cripple

May 26, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

A 51-year-old auto-parts specialist with lupus, fibromyalgia, diabetes and arthritis, claimed that his 29-year-old co-worker called him an “old cripple” and an “old man,” labeled him “too old to be trained,” and threatened to beat him with a baseball bat.

The 51-year-old responded by telling his manager that he would kick the 29-year-old’s ass and then came to work with a handgun in his car.

Wha Wha Whaaaaaat?!?!

Did the older employee overreact? Maybe. But was he the victim of a hostile work environment?

Find out after the jump.

* * *

Female accountant wins right to legally masturbate at work

May 19, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Yep.

More on this amazing story after the jump.

* * *

Can you reject an applicant BECAUSE he just completed drug rehab?

May 16, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act does not protect employees or applicants who use illegal drugs, it does protect those who are “participating in a supervised rehabilitation program, have successfully such a program, or who have otherwise been rehabilitated successfully.”

Does that mean that an employer cannot refuse to hire someone who, on the day after he completes a drug rehab program, applies for work?

Find out, after the jump.

* * *

Give me a D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I….(you get the point)

May 13, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

I had trouble sleeping last night.

If you read yesterday’s post, you know that when deciding between a post about an NFL cheerleader who was fired for risque pictures mailed to the Indianapolis Colts versus labor law and Twitter, I chose labor law and Twitter.

***stupid Twitter!***

I won’t make the same mistake twice. So, without further ado, I have the pictures federal-court complaint of the fired cheerleader and a brief rundown of her chances of success.

***Oh, Twitter. I can’t stay mad at you. I’ll give you a foot rub — right after I finish this can of Four Loko.***

Don’t judge me. Just skip past the jump. TGIF, yo.

* * *

No unemployment benefits for woman fired for Facebooking at work

May 2, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

If you read this blog (or just about any other labor and employment law blog), you know that social media policies have fallen under recent heightened scrutiny because of the chilling effect they could have on employees discussing terms and conditions of employment (e.g., wages, hours, etc.) with each other online. Where there is no controversy, however, is that companies may discipline employees who shirk their job responsibilities and goof of online — especially while on the clock.

After the jump, it’s a decision from the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denying unemployment compensation benefits to a nurse who was fired for using Facebook at work while she should have been medicating patients.

* * *

Yikes! NJ discrimination victims may tack on a whistleblower claim

April 27, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Consider this scenario:

Employee believes he is being discriminated against. Employee complains to Human Resources. HR investigates, but is unable to substantiate the employee’s claims. Employee nonetheless sues his employer, alleging discrimination. While the lawsuit is pending, the employer fires the employee for reasons it claims are unrelated to the pending action.

According to a recent unpublished NJ decision, the employee could have both a discrimination claim and a whistleblower claim under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).

Ain’t that some sh!t!

More on this important decision and the impact it may have on employers, after the jump…

* * *