Articles Posted in Retaliation

Frozen Food AisleI’ve come up with some pretty creative defenses to unlawful harassment. Usually, however, before I file a pleading, I take out my trusty red pen iPad and delete those arguments that are just so outrageous that I feel my client will lose credibility with the court.

But that’s just me.

After the jump, I have a recent federal-court decision in which a Maryland grocery claimed that the [alleged] relentless sexual harassment of a female employee by the store’s male manager wasn’t “sexual harassment” — that would be illegal. Rather, it was “exotic dancer” harassment.

That’s pretty creative, alright.

Oh boy…

* * *

Continue reading

Thumbnail image for Supreme Court.jpgYesterday, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar employment-discrimination lawsuits by ministers against their churches. More on this decision and some helpful reminders for private-sector employers after the jump

* * *

Continue reading

As the year draws to a close, let’s take a look back at the most popular posts at The Employer Handbook in 2011, based on number of hits:

5. Social media and the workplace. School teacher Natalie Munroe made several appearances on the blog this year. Remember her? She was the blogging school teacher who wrote that her students were “utterly loathsome in all imaginable ways.” Although, Ms. Munroe eventually returned to work, her experience is a sound reminder to always think twice before hitting “send.” You can read the fifth-most-popular post, “Yes, you CAN discipline employees who abuse social mediahere.

4. I’m a poet and I don’t even know it. I’m not sure what inspired the fourth-most-popular post. It must have been a slow news day. How else do I come up with the idea to Haiku — verbing a noun, sorry — about recent employment-law decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court?

I need to come clean with y’all. TMZ.com is one of my guilty pleasures. Don’t hate!

Historia-249And you should have seen the beaming smile on my face on Monday when when I got some blogging gold as TMZ ran a story about a former college professor at NYU who claims that the school discriminated against him by firing him for, among other things, giving actor James Franco a “D”.

The monkey’s out of the bottle now! More after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

And, then, there are those that allegedly do. It is on those occasions that this blog can practically write itself.

Take, for example, AutoNation. According to a complaint recently filed in California state court — well, let’s just say that AutoNation better have some good lawyers.

A copy of the complaint and some crazazy unlawful harassment — allegedly, of course — follows after the jump. Along with a few employer tips on same-sex harassment.

* * *

Continue reading

Back in August, I blogged about a case where a federal court held that an employer inquiring about an employee’s retirement plans, alone, does not discriminate on the basis of age. But what about relentlessly browbeating a plaintiff into retiring? Could that be age discrimination? What do you think, Brett? Find out after the jump…

 
* * *

Continue reading

Retaliation claims have become the leading cause of action for employees. In fiscal year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings, at 36,258. There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim:

  1. Employee Protected Activity – opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process;
  2. Employer Adverse Action – any adverse treatment (beyond a petty slight or a trivial annoyance) that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and
  3. Causal Connection – between the protected activity and the adverse action.

What makes retaliation claims so common? Well, it’s not so much because they are are easy for employees to prove. In my opinion, it’s because retaliation claims are tough for employers to disprove prior to trial.

Case in point after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.

* * *

Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.

Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.

And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information