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...

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 opportuni...

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...

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...

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 o...