The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out. American Airlines & Envoy To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle Disability Discrimination Claims Earlier this month, it was announced that Americans Airlines & Envoy would pay approximately $9.8 million (in stock) to settle disability discrimination claims that had been raised against the companies.  The allegations, in relevant part, alleged that the companies required all employees to not have any restrictions before returning to work from medical leave.  If an employee still had a restriction, they were not allowed to return to work as the companies apparently did not even provide an accommodation (nor even offer one).  This conduct violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee because of a disability or refusing to offer a reasonable

EEOC v. Autozone - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  To make things concise, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged that Autozone violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it transferred a Hispanic employee and an African American employee from one store to another in order to separate its workers at each store by race.  The EEOC alleged that Autozone was attempting to segregate its store employees by race and moving these two particular employees was done to accomplish that purpose.  A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately found that no violation of Title VII had occurred in this instance.  The EEOC subsequently asked for an en bank rehearing of the panel's decision. Holding :  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to "limit, segregate, or classify his employees...in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities

With a shorter week in the office this week because of Thanksgiving, I will keep this post shorter and to the point.  (Perhaps post Thanksgiving dinner, readers can peruse a few of these articles). As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. An Employee Gets Sick? It Is Probably Advisable to Have Them Stay Home If At All Possible We have all been there at one point:  You wake up in the morning and feel out of sorts.  Maybe it is constant sneezing or coughing, having the chills, running a temperature, etc.  Inevitably, the question arises whether you should tough it out and go into work.  As Daniel Victor at The New York Times advises, employers should encourage employees that are sick to stay at home until they get better.  Of course this is easier said than done for many employees.  Being out of the office/workplace means the work will back up, deadlines could be missed, conference calls will have to be re-set, etc.  However, the potential risk to

Huhmann v. Federal Express Corporation - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Dale Huhmann ("Huhmann") was hired by Federal Express ("FedEx") in 2001 as a pilot.  (From 1985 until he retired in 2006, Huhmann was commissioned as an officer in the United States Air Force Reserve).  In early 2003, Huhmann was selected to begin training in a "wide-body" aircraft that would qualify him for a higher pay grade.  However, on February 7, 2003, he was mobilized for active Air Force duty and was deployed overseas until August 31, 2006. After completing his military service, Huhmann returned to active pay status with FedEx on December 1, 2006 and began training to become a first officer on the wide-body aircraft, as originally planned before he was deployed.  Huhmann did not fail any portion of his training or evaluation and was activated as capable of flying the wide-body aircraft on February 22, 2007. Note, Huhmann is a member of the bargaining un

I have wanted to dedicate a post to sexual harassment issues in the workplace for a few weeks, but first I wanted to find a few articles that covered a broad scope on the topic.  (Given the recent sexual harassment allegations made yesterday about a sitting Senator, I think this post is all the more timely.)  Starting with Daniel Schwartz's article on his prediction of a likely rise in sexual harassment claims (and settlements) all the way through how sexual harassment allegations are prevalent in not only conservative workplaces (such as Fox News) but also organized labor, no workplace is immune from sexual harassment allegations.  Employers take note, as many of the below articles imply, there is no sure fire way to avoid sexual harassment allegations in today's work environment.  Perhaps just as important, there is no "guaranteed" way to eliminate sexual harassment allegations either.  As Daniel Schwartz writes, it is quite possible we are on the cusp of a new w

Last Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Save Local Business Act by a 242 - 181 vote in favor of the legislation.  The legislation (H.R. 3441) would redefine the definition of "joint employer" under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act and hold that a person or employer would be considered a joint employer only if it directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a limited manner exercised control over the seasonal terms and conditions of employment (such as hiring employees, discharging employees, determining individual rates of pay and benefits, day to day supervision of employees, assigning individual work schedules, positions, tasks, and administering employee discipline). Readers might recall that the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a somewhat controversial decision in 2015, Browning-Ferris , which held that an employer can be considered a joint employer with a franchisee, staffing agency, s

Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation, Inc. - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania Facts :  Bonnie Kaite ("Kaite") began working as a school bus driver for Altoona in 2001.  In 2015, Altoona informed Kaite that in accordance with a newly enacted state law, Kaite would be required to undergo a background check to continue her employment.  The background check required Kaite to be fingerprinted.  Kaite, a devout Christian, told Altoona that according to her sincerely held religious beliefs, she believed the fingerprinting was the "mark of the devil" and if she were fingerprinted, she would not get into Heaven.  She subsequently asked for an accommodation such as a different type of background check that did not require her to be fingerprinted.  Kaite was subsequently informed there was no accommodation available and terminated her for failing to comply with the state's fingerprinting requirement.  However, at least one other emplo

Given the continued attention that Governor Bruce Rauner's veto has received in Illinois (regarding attempts by Democrats in the state to stymie right to work zones), I thought it would be appropriate to dedicate this post to that very topic.  Not only has there been a second attempt by Democrats to override the Governor's veto earlier this week, but there are developments nationwide in regard to other right to work laws (and a pending case before the United States Supreme Court). As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Wisconsin Court of Appeals Upholds State's Right to Work Law A few months ago, readers might have recalled hearing that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the state's right to work law in the International Assoc. of Machinists District 10 and its Local Lodge 1061 v. State of Wisconsin case.  Ryan Wiesner at The National Law Review provides a good overview of the court's opinion and how this decision continu

This week, it was announced that Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown from Ohio, is supporting a bill in Congress that would shore up multiemployer pension plans in his state.  Many of those plans have come under scrutiny as of late with predictions that many will go insolvent in the next decade if something is not done to prop them up. Under the Senator's plan, a new Treasury Department office would be created that would oversee money lent to pension plans.  (This new office, the Pension Rehabilitation Fund, would supervise the loans that would come from the sale of Treausry bonds to private investors.)  Under this proposed legislation, no fewer than seven pension plans in Ohio would be able to borrow enough money to remain solvent and continue providing pensions to its retirees.  Senator Brown's proposal would essentially prop up a number of well known pension plans in the state including the United Mine Workers Pension, the Ironworkers Local 17 Pension Plan, and the Ohio

Jimenez v. 5454 Airport, LLC - United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division Facts :  Alex Neftaly Iraheta Jimenez ("Jimenez") worked as a cashier at an Airport Texaco gas station and convenience store owned by 5454 Airport, LLC ("5454 Airport").  One evening when he was working, there was an attempted robbery at his store.  During the course of the attempted robbery, Jimenez and the robbers shot at each other.  Jimenez was wounded in the shoulder and went to the hospital.  Approximately five months later, Jimenez left the job and subsequently filed a suit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and a claim for negligence. 5454 Airport proceeded to move for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Holding :  In a call back to the first semester of 1L in law school, to establish a valid cause of action for negligence, it must be established:  1) the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff; 2) the defendant bre

Back in June, I had pointed readers to a case from the Rhode Island Superior Court that addressed whether an applicant had a valid employment discrimination claim when she alleged that her potential employer failed to hire her for a position once the employer learned she had a medical marijuana card.  That case, Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics , held that the applicant had a valid employment discrimination claim against the potential employer .  As a result, Callgahan v. Darlington Fabrics has proven to be the preeminent case on medical marijuana discrimination claims so far and has resulted in a wave of similar findings from other courts that have considered the issue.   Given the likelihood that these medical marijuana discrimination cases are likely to become more prevalent as states continue to adopt laws making medical marijuana use lawful, I think it is appropriate to lead this post off with that topic. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week

A few weeks ago, I updated readers on the status of the overtime rule that had previously been announced during President Barack Obama's time in office .  That proposed rule sought to raise the overtime threshold and would have required employers to pay overtime to employees that earned less than $47,476.00 per year (up from the current "cut off" of $23,660.00 per year.) Before the new overtime rule went into effect, late last year, a Federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the implementation of the rule.  When President Donald Trump came into office, it was widely expected his Department of Labor would not appeal the preliminary injunction.  Subsequent to President Trump taking office, the judge who issued the preliminary injunction granted summary judgment in the case which made the injunction permanent. To the surprise of some, this week, the Department of Labor appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Department of La