My decision to sit at the computer and begin blogging at 10:48 PM on a Sunday has backfired on me, for sure. Continue reading
When defending against a woman’s sexual harassment claim, I’ve found that “she was asking for it” is generally a bad defense. So bad, in fact, that you may just want to whip out the old checkbook instead.
Another crappy one, apparently, is trying to convince a judge that an industrial workplace setting is carte blanche to knuckle drag and generally act like pigs.
Also known as the “blue collar” defense.
In 2001, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decided Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co. In Bibby, the Third Circuit could not have been clearer about whether federal anti-discrimination law made LGBT bias at work unlawful.
“Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have extended Title VII to cover sexual orientation.”
That’s binding precedent on all lower federal courts in Pennsylvania.
Except, on Friday, Judge Cathy Bissoon from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded EEOC v. Scott Medical (opinion here) that Bibby is questionable, outdated jurisprudence.
A few weeks ago, I blogged here about a federal agency — one that rhymes with EEOB — reaching a 7-figure settlement with its workers of alleged Fair Labor Standards Act overtime violations involving comp time.
Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion, in which it addressed another tricky situation involving overtime offsets.
Many times — most recently last Friday — I’ve discussed instances in which the 24/7 world of social media has cost individuals their jobs.
But, here’s a little twist. Earlier this month, a Pennsylvania federal court ruled here that a plaintiff’s Facebook page called “Yo know yo ass is from the da hood,” could be used by a defendant-employer to impeach an African-American employee’s claims of race discrimination and retaliation at work.