News for January 23, 2012
Featured this week:
Featured this week:
After concluding that the district court properly applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to an employee’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in the employer’s favor on both those claims (Donald v Sybra, Incorporated, dba Arby’s, 6thCir, January 17, 2012, Cole, R). Moreover, under the pre-amendment ADA, the employee could not demonstrate that she was disabled because she was not regarded as having an impairment that limited a major life activity. Therefore, the lower court properly dismissed her ADA and state law disability claims, the appeals court ruled.
A sheriff’s deputy, who refused to follow a “no skirt” policy after she became a member of a Pentecostal church, failed to survive summary judgment on her claim that the policy discriminated based on religion and sex or that it violated her constitutional rights, ruled a federal district court in Mississippi (Finnie v Lee County, Mississippi, NDMiss, January 17, 2012, Aycock, S). The court reasoned that the uniform policy was neutral and that there were safety and security risks inherent in dealing with inmates while wearing a skirt. However, the timing of her discharge, which was less than a month after she filed an EEOC charge, and testimony paring the two events created issues of fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment on her retaliation claim.
Gender discrimination claims raised by a purported class of female store managers arose from subjective local pay decisions rather than a company-wide policy, determined a federal district court in North Carolina, in granting Family Dollar Stores’ (FDS) motion to dismiss the class claims due to a lack of commonality (Scott v Family Dollar Stores, Inc, WDNC, January 13, 2012, Cogburn, M, Jr). The court also denied the employees’ motion to amend the complaint, finding that an amendment would be futile and prejudicial.
Noting that the ADAAA defines major life activity to include sleeping, a federal district court in Oklahoma ruled that an employee with sleep apnea pled a plausible claim of disability discrimination under the ADA (Johnson v Farmer’s Insurance Exchange aka Farmers Group, Inc, WDOkla, January 12, 2012, Cauthron, R). While the court acknowledged that the employee would still have to establish facts sufficient to prove that sleep apnea was a disability in order to survive summary judgment, her allegations were sufficient to survive the employer’s motion to dismiss.
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), on January 18, 2012, published a notice in the
Federal Register identifying the list of eligible countries that may participate in the H-2A and H-2B guest agricultural worker programs for the coming year.
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was unchanged in December on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported January 19. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.0 percent before seasonal adjustment.
Real average hourly earnings for all employees rose 0.2 percent from November to December, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported January 19. This change stems from a 0.2 percent increase in average hourly earnings.
You are subscribed to CCH® NetNews, sponsored by CCH INCORPORATED. Click here to unsubscribe. To manage your newsletter preferences or subscribe, click here.
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: CCH Incorporated, Attn: Business Compliance Marketing, 2700 Lake Cook Rd., Riverwoods, IL 60015. Please include the email address you have been contacted with.
|
Special Report |
Quest Diagnostics hit with $100 million gender, caregiver bias class action suit
Female sales reps at Quest Diagnostics have filed a $100 million class action gender discrimination suit alleging the company’s practices have an unlawful disparate impact on female employees. The complaint, filed in the federal district court in New Jersey, names Quest Diagnostics and its AmeriPath, Inc, division as defendants.
The lawsuit was filed by an executive territory manager employed by Quest in Indiana and a senior executive territory manager in Florida, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated sales reps employed from February 2010 to the present. Both named plaintiffs are current Quest employees in the AmeriPath division. Their complaint asserts that a significant number of female Quest employees have been affected by the same discriminatory employment policies, practices, and procedures to which the lead plaintiffs were subjected, therefore class certification is warranted. The named plaintiffs also have asserted individual claims of disparate pay, differential treatment, gender hostility, hostile work environment, and retaliation.
Read
|
Featured Product |
CCH Employment Law Daily is a premium labor and employment law update service that offers daily e-mails, access to an online searchable database, and the option of receiving breaking news alerts throughout the day.
Learn More »
|
|