Texas Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Discrimination Lawyer & Attorney : McKinney Law Firm : Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination : Texas

In an 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that an employee who claims he was fired because his fiancee filed a sex discrimination charge against their mutual employer may pursue a retaliation claim under Title VII.

Justice Scalia wrote for the Court. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Kagan did not take part.

Reversing a federal appeals court ruling in favor of North American Stainless LP, the Supreme Court said it had “little difficulty concluding that if the facts alleged by the plaintiff are true, then [the company's] firing of him violated Title VII.” The Court held that even though it was the plaintiff's fiancee who filed the sex bias charge and not the plaintiff, he is still a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Title VII and therefore entitled to sue.

• Links to the briefing and oral argument recordings here.

• Read the Court's opinion here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ellen Dannin of Workplace Prof Blog has the story of a mandatory arbitration notice posted to the door of a Whataburger fast-food restaurant.  The agreement states that:

"By entering these premises, you hereby agree to resolve any and all disputes or claims of any kind whatsoever, which arise from the products, services or premises, by way of binding arbitration, not litigation.  No suit or action may be filed in any state or federal court.  Any arbitration shall be governed by the FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT, and administered by the American Mediation Association."

According to the article, it turns out that the "American Mediation Association" is just some guy.  Or more specifically, the law office of "Robert Smith & Associates."

Dannin writes "Years ago, I argued that the Supreme Court's arbitration jurisprudence would just about let a grocery store compel a customer's arbitration merely by printing an arbitration clause on a grocery receipt. It now appears that we have sunk so low."

So, now that the Constitution is officially an opt-out arrangement, maybe I should look into producing a line of clothing that has a mandatory arbitration clause printed right on the front of your shirt.  "By looking in my direction you hereby agree to give up your Constitutional rights and agree to arbitrate any and all claims by using this guy over here who is on my payroll." 

That sounds fair, doesn't it?
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that the EEOC has issued a determination finding that a female Houston firefighter was subjected to a hostile work environment based on gender and also suffered retaliation at the hands of the Department.  The EEOC report, released Monday, says Jane Draycott found racial and sexual slurs scrawled on her locker after she complained about workplace conditions in 2009. Another firefighter's locker was also defaced, according to the report.

The fire department has denied allegations of sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation, the report said. Those responsible for the vandalism have not been found.

Read the entire story.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"This is not a black holiday; it is a people's holiday," -- Coretta Scott King, Nov. 2, 1983. 

A Baptist minister, King became a civil rights activist early in his career. He led the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott and helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, serving as its first president. King's efforts led to the 1963 March on Washington, where King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. There, he expanded American values to include the vision of a color blind society, and established his reputation as one of the greatest orators in American history.

In 1964, King became the youngest person to receive the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end racial segregation and racial discrimination through civil disobedience and other nonviolent means. By the time of his assassination in 1968, he had refocused his efforts on ending poverty and stopping the Vietnam War. He was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977 and Congressional Gold Medal in 2004.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day was established as a U.S. federal holiday in 1986.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seventh Circuit has held that a plaintiff need not present medical testimony to raise a triable issue that he is substantially limited in a major life activity and therefore entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA. (EEOC v. AutoZone Inc., 7th Cir., No. 10-1353, 12/30/10).

From 1999 until 2004, John Shepherd worked as a parts sales manager at AutoZone, a vehicle services company, in Macomb, Illinois. In 2005, AutoZone terminated Shepherd's employment after keeping him on medical leave involuntarily for over a year. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed this suit on Shepherd's behalf under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The EEOC alleged that AutoZone violated the ADA in three ways: first, by failing to accommodate Shepherd's physical limitations from March 2003 until September 2003; second, by discriminatorily denying Shepherd the opportunity to work after September 2003; and third, by terminating him in retaliation for filing charges against the company. The district court granted summary judgment for AutoZone on the first claim, finding that the EEOC had not shown that Shepherd had a disability within the meaning of the ADA as is required to demonstrate a failure to accommodate. A jury later ruled in favor of AutoZone on the discriminatory treatment and retaliation claims.

On appeal, the employer argued that EEOC's failure to offer medical testimony regarding plaintiff’s alleged limitations precluded a finding that he was “substantially limited” under the ADA, as it was interpreted prior to the ADA Amendments Act. But the court said no language in the ADA, EEOC's implementing regulations, or relevant case law requires plaintiffs to produce such medical testimony. “Instead, the ADA requires those claiming the act's protection to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation caused by their impairment in terms of their own experience is substantial,” the court said, citing Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002). “That is exactly what the EEOC showed here through [plaintiff’s] testimony, corroborated by [his wife's] testimony.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks