Recent Rulings:
A district court judge in Washington D.C. recently held that a man who was offered a position at the Library of Congress could make a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII after the offer was rescinded upon his supervisor learning that the man was undergoing a procedure to become a woman. Schroer v. Billington, 2008.
Starbucks recently was sued for religious discrimination by a woman who was a member of the Wiccan religion. Her employer made comments that her necklace would make clients think she was a Satan worshipper. The court refused to dismiss the claim and allowed it to proceed to trial. Hedum v. Starbucks Corp., 2008 WL 361202, Feb. 7, 2008.
The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled (in a case handled by Attorney Hayber) that the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) requires employers to accommodate disabled employees. While the language of that statute did not expressly include this requirement, the Court interpreted it as though it did so as to advance the broad remedial goal of the statute. The Court further held that employers must engage employees in an interactive process, or discussion, about the disability in order to comply with their obligations under the law and may not discharge an employee without first doing so. Finally, the court held that employer policies that require that employees be fully healed before returning to work after an injury are illegal to the extent that they prevent disabled workers who could be accommodated from returning to work. Curry v. Allan S. Goodman, Inc., 286 Conn. 390.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio recently ruled in favor of a female attorney at Youngstown State University in her equal pay, gender discrimination and retaliation claim. She was paid approximately $50,000 less than a male attorney in the General Counsel's office of that University and her contract was non-renewed shortly after her complaint about unequal pay. Denman v. Youngstown State University, 2008 WL 483066 (N.D.Ohio) (Feb. 2008).
Attorney Hayber recently won a ruling from the Connecticut District Court permitting a female kitchen designer at Home Depot to pursue her claim for unequal pay. She had alleged that male kitchen designers were being paid more for the same work. The Court denied Home Depot’s motion to dismiss the case. Osborn v. Home Depot.
A federal trial court here in Connecticut recently held that a female applicant for a position with the Town of Vernon had not offered enough evidence to show that the decision to hire a male applicant was unlawful discrimination. The plaintiff in that case did not perform well at her interview, and the evidence she offered to show discrimination was that the selected male candidate lied on his resume and ended up botching the job. In order to show that an employer discriminated in violation of federal law, a plaintiff must show that at the time of selection, “the plaintiff’s credentials [were] so superior to the credentials of the person selected for the job that no reasonable person…could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff.” Pippin v. Town of Vernon, 2009 WL 3075335 (D. Conn. 2009) (Arterton, J.)
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a trial court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of Yale University in a case in which a female employee alleged that she was paid less than a male colleague in violation of the Equal Pay Act. Yale pointed to evidence showing that the male colleague’s job was different, and therefore higher-paid. The Second Circuit held that because Yale could point to no evidence that went back to 1989, when the decision to pay the female worker was made, the trial court should not have granted judgment for Yale. Jamilik v. Yale University, 2009 WL 3228775 (Second Circuit October 8, 2009)
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently reinstated the case of a 51-year old woman who had sued for age and gender discrimination after her contract to teach classes for Cornell University was not renewed. The Court held that because five other females over 50 were laid off at the same time she was, the University gave most of her teaching duties to younger males, and the University did not consider here for other open positions the plaintiff should be able to proceed with her case. Liebowitz v. Cornell University, --F.3d--, 2009 WL 3403147 (2d Cir. Oct. 23, 2009).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently rejected a disability discrimination claim brought by an alcoholic who claimed that his condition, which occasionally caused him to miss work, should have been accommodated with a flexible work schedule. The Court held that regular attendance was an essential function of the job and that the plaintiff was unable to that he could perform this function reliably. The employer, a power company relied on employees to monitor the functioning of the plant and needed to “rely on him to appear for his shifts at the time he was terminated.” VandenBroek v. PSEG Power CT, LLC, 2009 WL 4730427 (2d Cir. 12/11/2009).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employee of the Connecticut Department of Transportation did not present enough evidence to make a claim for discrimination on the basis of his race. The court held that the employee failed to show that his credentials were superior enough to those of the Caucasian employees to create the inference that his race must have been the basis of the DOT’s decision to promote other employees. He also did not have enough evidence to show that there was a “discriminatory animus” in his workplace; rather, the evidence just created the inference that his co-workers didn’t like him personally. Lomotey v. State of Connecticut Department of Transportation, 2009 WL 4430893 (2d Cir. 12/4/2009).
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut recently held that a female applicant for a position with the Department of Corrections who failed a physical fitness test could proceed with her lawsuit as a class action. The plaintiff in this case is seeking to show that the test had a disparate impact on female applicants, since only 52% of female applicants passed the physical fitness test, compared with 80% of male applicants in 2006. The court held that the potential class of female applicants was numerous enough and presented similar enough questions of law and fact to proceed as a class action. Easterling v. Department of Corrections, Doc. No. 3:08cv0826 (Jan. 4, 2010).
|
