Employment Alerts

 

• Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 520 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2008)

  Appellant was fired shortly after his fiancé filed a gender discrimination charge with the EEOC against their mutual employer. The Sixth Circuit Court found that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision applies to individuals other than those engaging in the protected activity, and extends to retaliation against employees who are “so closely related to or associated with those who are directly involved, that it is clear that the protected activity motivated the employer’s action."

• Lorah v. Tetra Tech, Inc., 541 F.Supp.2d 629 (D. Delaware 2008)

  Plaintiff filed charges against defendant, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the ADA. In dismissing the ADA claim, the Delaware District Court found that the fact that the employer asked the plaintiff during the job interview whether she had a disability was insufficient to sustain a claim under the ADA.

• Cintas Corporation v. Perry, 517 F.3d 459 (7th Cir. 2008)

  Plaintiff employer filed suit, alleging that a former employee violated non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure provisions of his employment agreement when he left his job to work for a competitor. The court found that the district court was not required to amend unreasonable, unenforceable non-compete provisions, and granted summary judgment as to the non-solicitation and non-disclosure provisions.

• Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 522 F.3d 1190 (11th Cir. 2008)

  A union successfully challenged a member’s dismissal, but waited more than two years to file a petition for enforcement for payment of back wages, as they had requested an interpretation of the arbitration award. The 11th Circuit Court found that a request for interpretation does not toll the statute of limitations on the enforcement of an arbitration award, and the statute of limitations period expired.

• Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F. 3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008)

  Plaintiff, a white man married to a black woman, was fired, along with a black employee when the basketball team that they were Associate Head Coach and Assistant Coach for, respectively, experienced a down time. The Second Circuit Court held that an employer’s actions taken against an employee, based on that employee’s association with a member of a protected class, may violate Title VII.

• EEOC to Authorize Differences in Health Care Benefits for Older Retirees.
  
  In a January 15, 2007  ruling, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission advised employers that it would allow employers to have slight differences in retiree health benefits.
  
  http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_retireehealthrule.html

• Connecticut Supreme Court Interprets State Anti-Discrimination Law to Require Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Employees.

Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390 (2008) - The Connecticut Supreme Court recently reversed a summary judgment decision in favor of the employer defendant, and found that although CFEPA does not explicitly require that an employer make a “reasonable accommodation” for disabled employees, the Court now “require[s] employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability” under Connecticut antidiscrimination law. Explaining its rationale, the Court states that it has previously looked to federal antidiscrimination law when interpreting Connecticut antidiscrimination statutes. The Court also looked to the legislative history of CFEPA, which illustrates that the act was meant to provide significant protections for those with disabilities. Furthermore, many other states impose a reasonable accommodation requirement with regard to their own antidiscrimination laws and the CHRO has long embraced the right of reasonable accommodation for disabled employees under CFEPA. In evaluating the plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claim, the Court looked to federal precedent for guidance. The Court further adopts the federal requirement that once an employee suggests an accommodation, the employer “must make a good faith effort to participate in that discussion,” as under federal law an employer has a “duty to engage in interactive processes in good faith.”