Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Category: Discrimination

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations for Constructive Discharge Claims

by

Posted in Discrimination

On June 22, 2016

On May 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Green v. Brennan, held that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge claim begins to run when the employee gives notice of his or her resignation, not at the time of the employer’s last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation. The “constructive discharge” doctrine refers to a situation in which an employer discriminates against an employee to the point that the employee’s working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would feel compelled to resign.

N.J. Supreme Court Invalidates Agreements to Shorten the LAD’s Statute of Limitations

by

Posted in Discrimination

On June 20, 2016

On June 15, 2016, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., held that an agreement by an employee to bring claims against his employer within six months of the allegedly wrongful employment action was unenforceable insofar as the agreement applied to claims brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“the LAD”). In 1993, the Court had held that New Jersey’s general two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions provides the appropriate limitations period for LAD claims. In Raymours, the Court ruled that the employer’s attempt to reduce this limitations period to six months undermined the LAD’s specific enforcement scheme for the elimination of discrimination and thus, for public policy reasons, could not be judicially sanctioned. In addition, the Court found that the particular agreement at issue, set forth as part of the boilerplate in the employer’s standard employment application form, constituted an unenforceable contract of adhesion.

Reminder: NYC Ban the Box Law Effective October 27, 2015

by

Posted in Discrimination

On October 1, 2015

Employers must be aware of the changes to the New York City Administrative Code effective October 27, 2015, which prohibits employers from asking applicants regarding their criminal histories (typically called “Ban the Box”) prior to a conditional offer of employment. Under the new law called the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”) – which affects employers of four or more employees – employers may not (1) ask the applicant during an interview, (2) include a question on an application, or (3) conduct a separate search using public sources, such as the internet, to elicit information regarding an applicant’s criminal convictions or arrest records. The Act contains limited exceptions for persons who apply for law enforcement positions or for licenses concerning the regulation of firearms and explosives. Also, the Act does not prevent an employer from conducting a background check required by state, federal or local law that mandates criminal background checks or that bars employment based on a criminal history. An example of such requirement is regulations of a self-regulatory organization such as FINRA.

Employee May Pursue Claims Under FLSA For No Lactation Breaks

by

Posted in Discrimination / Employment Agreements / Reductions in Force

On September 16, 2015

In Lico v. TD Bank et al., a federal court in the Eastern District of New York upheld an employee’s right to bring claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against her employer, TD Bank (“the Bank”), for failure to provide adequate facilities and time for lactation breaks. The FLSA requires employers covered by the FLSA to provide employees (1) reasonable unpaid time at work to express breast milk for up to one year following childbirth and (2) a place, other than a restroom, that is not visible and is free from intrusion to do so.

Paid Suspension Not Adverse Employment Action Under Title VII, According to Third Circuit Court of Appeals

by

Posted in Discrimination

On September 8, 2015

In Jones v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that a paid suspension is not an adverse employment action in the “substantive discrimination context.” A predicate for a discrimination claim under the various anti-discrimination laws, requires the plaintiff to show she suffered an “adverse employment action,” generally described as an action or incident substantially serious to alter an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. In the absence of an adverse employment action, a discrimination claim fails. Now, a paid suspension, as determined by the Circuit Court, is not significantly sufficient to affect the employment relationship to create liability under Federal and Pennsylvania State anti-discrimination laws.

Jury Awards $2.2 Million to Employees Over DNA Tests in Violation of GINA in “Devious Defecator” Case

by

Posted in Discrimination

On August 19, 2015

A federal court jury in Georgia recently awarded $2.22 million to two employees in what is believed to be the first jury verdict in a Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) employment case since the law went into effect in 2008. Dubbed the “devious defecator” case by the court, Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC involved an employer’s testing of two employees’ facial cheek (or “buccal”) swabs to identify whether either was the individual who had been repeatedly defecating on the employer’s premises. All jokes aside, the decision is notable, not only because it is one of the few, if only, jury verdicts awarded under GINA, but because it serves as an important warning to employers that GINA may apply more broadly than some initially believed, while also possibly providing a blueprint for other courts on how to interpret the statute.

Supreme Court Rules an Employer’s Failure to Accommodate a Job Applicant’s Religious Practice Violates Title VII Without Proof the Applicant Requested An Accommodation

by

Posted in Discrimination

On June 4, 2015

In its much anticipated decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a prospective employee who was turned down for a job because she wore a headscarf, which the employer suspected was worn for religious reasons, can proceed with her claim of religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, although when she applied for the job the applicant never requested permission to wear the headscarf as an accommodation to her religious practices. Employers should be aware that the Court’s decision (1) imposes on an employer an affirmative obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of its employees and prospective employees and (2) exposes an employer to potential liability for intentional discrimination, and thus for compensatory and punitive damages, for failing to make such accommodations.

U.S. Supreme Court Requires EEOC to Attempt Conciliation Before Suing

by

Posted in Discrimination

On May 5, 2015

In Mach Mining LLC v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the United States Supreme Court was presented with the issue of whether the EEOC must attempt to conciliate an employer’s alleged violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before initiating a lawsuit against the employer and, if so, to what extent a court may review those conciliation efforts. The Court concluded that the EEOC must attempt to engage in conciliation, but that the scope of a court’s review of the EEOC’s efforts is narrow. Post-Mach Mining, an employer that attempts to challenge a lawsuit brought by the EEOC on the grounds that the agency’s conciliation efforts were insufficient will be fighting an uphill battle.

U.S. Supreme Court Reinstates Pregnant Worker’s Discrimination Case

by

Posted in Discrimination

On March 26, 2015

In Young v. UPS, the United States Supreme Court reinstated a UPS worker’s pregnancy discrimination lawsuit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, finding that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had applied the wrong standard in upholding UPS’s light-duty-for-injury policy, under which the company refused a light-duty accommodation to a pregnant employee back in 2006. While the Court did not determine whether the employee suffered any actual discrimination, or whether UPS’s policy was impermissible under the PDA – those issues were remanded to the Fourth Circuit – the Court did adopt a modified version of the familiar burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas for analyzing pregnancy discrimination claims under the PDA. The Court’s decision in Young is also noteworthy in that it declined to give deference to the EEOC’s July 2014 guidance on pregnancy discrimination, which we have previously discussed, and, in fact, rejected the argument that the PDA creates “an unconditional favored nations status” for pregnant workers.

Short and Concise Release Agreement Saves the Day for Employer According to NY Federal District Court

by

Posted in Discrimination

On March 9, 2015

On February 24, 2015, in Brewer v. GEM Industrial Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York found a two-plus page separation agreement sufficient to dismiss the plaintiff’s court complaint because it was short, understandable by a lay person and included a provision notifying the employee of the right to seek counsel before signing it. The plaintiff, Samuel Brewer, sued his employer claiming discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 related to his termination. Before filing his discrimination lawsuit, he executed a separation agreement containing a release of claims. His employer moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the release in the separation agreement.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories