Skip to main content

One to Keep An Eye On: Green v. Donahoe, United States Supreme Court


As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on.


Facts:  Marvin Green ("Green") worked for the U.S. Postal Service and alleged that his employer retaliated against him after he made employment discrimination claims.  He was investigated, threatened with criminal prosecution and put on unpaid leave.  Shortly after he was put on leave, he was allowed to choose to retire or work in a position that paid much less and was about 300 miles away.  Green chose to retire.  He subsequently filed a lawsuit and his employer moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the constructive discharge claim was untimely filed. 

Looking Back:  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that the time limit to file a constructive discharge claim did not begin to run when Green resigned.  Instead, the time limit to file a constructive discharge claim begins to run at the time of the employer's last alleged discriminatory act that gave rise to the resignation.

The Main Issue:  Whether the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when an employee resigns or at the time of the employer's last alleged discriminatory act that gave rise to the resignation.  Note that five circuits have held the former; three the latter. 

Current Status:  On April 27, the Supreme Court granted the petition and agreed to hear the case.  This one should be decided upon during the Court's 2015 - 2016 term.


A copy of the Tenth Circuit opinion can be found here:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5588293775428752365

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more