- “US Airways has agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines because it provided inadequate wheelchair service at the Charlotte and Philadelphia airports” [Charlotte Observer, USA Today; on abuses of the right to request wheelchair service at airports, see links in our post last May] Support animals on airplanes, cont’d [NYT]
- In New York, indefinite leave of absence may be deemed a reasonable accommodation that employer is obliged to grant [Erin McPhail Wetty, Seyfarth] Per Second Circuit in NYC case, timely attendance not essential job function [Mark Kittaka, Barnes & Thornburg]
- US disability rate fell 25 percent between 1977-87, then more than doubled [Tad DeHaven, Cato via Bryan Caplan] Has a Kentucky attorney found holes in the SSDI system? [Jillian Kay Melchior]
- Per EEOC, employer may be obliged to grant employee’s request to work from home as reasonable accommodation [Johanna Wise, Seyfarth]
- Lawprof suspended for allegedly yelling at subordinates sues under ADA [Althouse, Above the Law]
- “None of the people who complained had even been into the store” [San Diego Reader]
- And yet more from EEOC: employer “integrity testing” meant to assess applicants’ honesty, trustworthiness and dependability can run afoul of disabled-rights law [link]
Posts Tagged ‘EEOC’
Sixth Circuit upholds $750,000 fee award against EEOC
As mentioned yesterday, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has either had a stretch of really, really bad luck in court lately, or else it’s been caught out by a series of judges for outrageously aggressive litigation sometimes crossing over into misconduct. Among the recent cases, the Sixth Circuit upheld a fee award of $750,000 to a company that the commission had sued over a purported policy of not hiring convicted felons. Here’s Molly DiBianca of the Delaware Employment Law Blog:
The EEOC “investigated” the Charge, issuing multiple subpoenas and obtaining more than 15,000 pages of documents. Although the evidence did not seem to support the allegations in the Charge, EEOC disagreed and filed suit. The suit, asserted on a class of individuals, alleged that the company’s policy prohibited the hiring “of any person with a criminal record,” which disparately impacted Black applicants.
The trouble, though, was that PeopleMark did not have such a policy. Then the EEOC identified approximately 250 individuals it contended to be within the class of aggrieved persons. Well, as it turned out, PeopleMark had hired 57 of the individuals and some others did not have a criminal background in the first place.
More from Eric Paltell/Kollman & Saucier; DeGroff & Maatman; Greg Mersol, Baker Hostetler; EEOC v. PeopleMark.
Fortune on the EEOC’s legal war against employers
For the fourth time in two months a judge has chastised the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for its high-handed ways, reports Claire Zillman at Fortune:
According to court filings, EEOC personnel arrived with subpoenas in hand, intimidated the small office’s staff, rifled through its confidential personnel and patient files, and illegally took company documents. The EEOC acted “as if it were the FBI executing a criminal search warrant,” HNI said in a court filing.
On September 30, a federal magistrate judge in Atlanta ruled that the commission’s tactics constituted a “highly inappropriate search and seizure operation.” The agency’s “failure to follow its own regulations, its foot-dragging, its errors in communication which caused unnecessary expense for HNI” constituted a “misuse of its authority as an administrative agency.”
Last month federal judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan whacked the agency in a discrimination suit against Bloomberg LP, dismissing most charges and ruling that the agency had failed to shoulder its responsibility to investigate before litigation. [Reuters, NY Post, NY Daily News]
Much more on the agency’s waywardness: Hans Bader; DeGroff and Maatman on 10th Circuit TriCore case.
EEOC v. Boh Brothers
EEOC v. Boh Brothers is a new Fifth Circuit en banc decision allowing liability on a theory of hostile workplace environment sex discrimination arising from crude and aggressive locker-room banter in an all-male workplace (on facts differing somewhat from those in Oncale v. Sundowner, the 1998 Supreme Court case countenancing such liability). The dissent by Judge Edith Jones, p. 46 at footnote 3, cites my “Sentence First, Verdict Afterward,” from the July issue of Commentary magazine, on the federal government’s unhealthy interest lately in developing legal doctrines that pressure private institutions into adopting speech codes aimed at protecting listeners’ sensitivities.
Don’t miss the “Etiquette for Ironworkers” parody legal memo on p. 58, either. How many dissents include a parody legal memo?
Labor and employment roundup
- “Can The EEOC Troll For Plaintiffs By Sending A Blast Email To Business Email Addresses?” [Christopher DeGroff, Seyfarth Shaw Workplace Class Action Blog, on Case New Holland v. EEOC]
- Just one of those things? Special holiday bonus giveaways could’ve plugged $1.9 billion of Detroit fiscal gap [Megan McArdle, Coyote] The police and fire departments that ate Motown [Coyote] Fire department expenditures have risen even in cities where fires have declined 90 percent [Tabarrok]
- EEOC sues employer for failing to accommodate employee’s religious belief linking hand scanner to “Mark of the Beast” [EEOC release, West Virginia Record, Exponent-Telegram]
- Claim that FDR opposed collective bargaining in public sector rated “True” [Politifact]
- Worker who tore down employer poster can sue under California law banning adverse workplace treatment based on political belief [Volokh]
- You’re paying through taxes for the work of the eatery-harassing Restaurant Opportunities Center [Eric Boehm/Reason, Washington Times, Diana Furchtgott-Roth/RCM]
- Before the Supreme Court in Unite HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall: Does federal labor law prohibition on employer’s giving “thing of value” to union prohibit furnishing cooperation during a campaign to unionize? [SCOTUSBlog, Cato Institute amicus brief with National Federation of Independent Business, Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Sachs at new labor blog On Labor] More: Trevor Burrus, Cato.
Labor and employment roundup
- “Is the main effect of the minimum wage on job growth?” [Tyler Cowen] Minimum wage is transitional wage; most workers who receive it will earn higher rate in the next year if they stay employed [same] “Obama’s Bogus Case for a ‘Decent Wage'”[Ira Stoll]
- “Equipment manufacturer sues EEOC over email survey trolling for potential class members” [Jessica Karmasek, LNL]
- Don’t mess with SEIU? “Service Employees Suit Assesses Harsh Penalties against Breakaway Reformers” [Steve Early, Labor Notes]
- NLRB is fully staffed now, so watch out employers [Rod Kackley, Crain’s Detroit Business]
- Major League Baseball latest to face suit over unpaid volunteer workers [ABA Journal]
- Dent in lawyers’ business plan? Judge doesn’t think Michigan meatpacking workers’ $1,000 don/doff claim is adequate basis for $140,000 legal fee award [Free Press]
- Workplace vagrants: many employees quit jobs regularly as garnishment catches up to them [Coyote]
Labor and employment roundup
- EEOC guidance lost big in last week’s SCOTUS employment decisions [Daniel Fisher, Michael Greve]
- Classification of obesity as a “disease” has huge employment law implications [Jon Hyman]
- EEOC goes after BMW, Dollar General over criminal background checks on job candidates [ABA Journal, Althouse, Michael Carvin and Eric Dreiband (“The Government Checks Criminal Records. Why Can’t Private Employers?”), Employer’s Lawyer, earlier] “So the gov’t convicts minorities at a disproportionate rate. Then the gov’t sues companies that checks those records, smart.” [Surya Gunasekara] Why not ban Google too? (Don’t give them ideas, please) [ Mike Riggs]
- Wage and hour suits soar, record number filed so far in 2013 [Corp Counsel, Overtime Lawyer, I-Sight] Related: what’s wrong with the epithet “wage theft” [Hyman]
- Employer’s claim: I can’t get due process from Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities [Daniel Schwartz]
- The First Amendment protects our speech rights against the government, not against those we deal with in the workplace who may disapprove [Schwartz and more on Connecticut employment proposal] NLRB “attempting to sanction a California newspaper despite a federal appeals court’s decision that such a ruling threatened the publisher’s First Amendment rights.” [Washington Free Beacon]
- “Bergen, Passaic County towns saddled with costs as lawsuits filed by police add up” [Bergen Record via NJLRA]
Denver janitors: it’s discriminatory not to communicate with us in Spanish
“A group of Spanish-speaking custodial workers in Colorado have filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that the Auraria Higher Education Center in Denver discriminated against them by failing to provide Spanish translations.” [Caroline May, Daily Caller; Denver Post]
Labor and employment roundup
- Gov. Christie vetoes bill enabling workers and job applicants to sue employers who asked about Facebook use [NJLRA, Star-Ledger, more]
- “Shockingly a British pub might want to hire British employees,” NYC Human Rights Commission sees things differently [Amy Alkon]
- Anticlimax: despite fears, NLRB won’t ban at-will disclaimers in employee handbooks [Jon Hyman]
- “Equally injurious to the children of the laboring classes is their utilization by their parents in theatrical and operatic shows” [Kyle Graham]
- Senate confirms plaintiffs’ class action attorney as newest appointee to EEOC [Stoel Rives]
- Public accounting: “Two advances for pension transparency” [Josh Barro]
- At least there’s one category of young worker for whom job prospects remain bright, namely kids of Andrew Cuomo’s friends [David Boaz]
Labor and employment roundup
- Controversy over new EEOC guidelines on hiring ex-cons isn’t going away [James Bovard/Peter Kirsanow, Richard Epstein/Hoover “Defining Ideas”, Kevin Funnell, Wendy McElroy/FEE]
- That goes double if it’s true: “You cannot fire a pregnant employee because ‘the baby is taking its toll on you'” [Cohen, Fox Rothschild] Maryland bill would grant pregnant employees right to accommodation, “less strenuous job duties” if needed [Baltimore Sun]
- And similarly: “Is an employer obligated to provide light duty to an employee returning from FMLA leave?” [Jon Hyman]
- Why Card-Krueger study doesn’t change Bryan Caplan’s view on economics of the minimum wage [EconLib]
- Quest for a Labor Secretary even farther left than Hilda Solis eventuates in Tom Perez [Katrina Trinko, J. Christian Adams]
- Unhappy aftermath of Connecticut nursing-home sabotage [Washington Examiner] Assaults by members of Teamster local in Philadelphia quarry dispute draw NLRB response [Pennsylvania Independent]
- Will New York become the first state to create dangerous private right of action for “workplace bullying”? [Michael Fox]