SubscribeAdd blog to your RSS feed
FeedbackWe'd like to hear from you
- The Inbox – December Rain Edition
- California Court SLAPPs Down Employee’s Malicious Prosecution Suit Based on Employer’s Trade Secret Case Against Him
- Upcoming Suits by Suits Whistleblower Webinar – Chance for Free Registration!
- Visions of an Improper Noncompete Provision: Texas Court Rejects LASIK Clinic’s Injunction Request Against Former Doctor
- November 2013 Monthly Roundup
- Skunks, Conquistadores, and Killer Balloons: Why Thanksgiving Is The Best Tuesday (or Possibly Thursday) of the Year
- Texas Strictly Construes Application of Mandatory Arbitration Clause Despite Superseding Agreement With No Such Clause
- Will Fiduciary Liability Insurance Cover Severance Agreement Payments If The Company Can’t Make Them?
- The Inbox, pre-Turkey Day edition
- Upcoming Suits by Suits Webinar: Whistleblower Watch
- After-Acquired Evidence
- Age Discrimination
- Arbitration and ADR
- Breach of Contract
- Civil Litigation
- Dodd-Frank Act
- Equal Pay
- Executive Compensation
- Family Medical Leave
- Fiduciary Duties
- Monthly Roundup
- Motions to Dismiss
- Noncompete Agreements
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Preliminary Injunction
- Religious Discrimination
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act
- Severance Agreements – Change-in-Control Provisions
- Social Media
- Statutes of limitations
- Summary Judgment
- The Basics
- The Inbox
- Title VII
- Trade Secrets
- Vicarious Liability
- Wage and Hour
- Workplace Conditions (Occupational Safety and Health)
- Wrongful Termination
Blogs We Like:
The AmLaw Daily
The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes
Connecticut Employment Law Blog
The D&O Diary
Delaware Employment Law Blog
DeNovo: A Virginia Appellate Law Blog
The Employer Handbook
Executive Pay Matters
The Federal Criminal Appeals Blog
Grand Jury Target
Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home: What You Need To Know Before You Scream “I Quit,” Get Fired, Or Decide to Sue the Bastards
Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog
Virginia Appellate News & Analysis
WSJ Law Blog
Showing 44 posts in Discrimination.
A Baltimore police officer claimed she was fired because she got married. The police department agreed. The problem was that the officer married Carlito Cabana, an incarcerated murderer and the “supreme commander” of a prison gang called Dead Man, Inc. The question presented was whether the police department’s action violated the officer’s “constitutional right to marry and to engage in intimate association.” The Maryland courts didn’t think much of that claim, see Cross v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, and it does seem as though the police department had a point.
But what about Mr. Cabana? Surely Cabana’s “employer,” nominally a private corporation, could not have been pleased with his choice of spouse, either. (Let’s ignore Dead Man’s failure to register to do business in Maryland.) Could the Dead Man board have fired Cabana for marrying a cop? Could a legitimate private employer (like the Coca-Cola Co.) have fired an executive for marrying an employee of its mortal adversary (like PepsiCo)? Read More ›
Those of us who live in or near big cities know the value of a good parking space. Two years ago, New Yorkers paid an average of $540 a month to park in midtown Manhattan. And here in Washington, D.C., a permanent space can go for as much as $100,000.
A good parking spot was also important to Pauline Feist, an assistant attorney general with the Louisiana Department of Justice. Feist, citing a disability (osteoarthritis of the knee), asked the Department for a free space in her building rather than in the garage across the street, but her employer turned down her request. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, and five months later, she was out of a job. Feist sued the Department in federal court, alleging that it had discriminated against her by denying her a parking space and then by retaliating against her for filing the EEOC complaint.
The federal trial judge slammed the door on Feist, granting summary judgment on both of her claims. However, in a ruling last week, the Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment ruling on Feist’s discrimination claim, sending the case back to the trial court for a second try. Feist v. State of Louisiana, No. 12-31065 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2013). Read More ›
We thought about getting a Putin op-ed to cap off this week at Suits by Suits. But instead, we decided to stick with our tried-and-true formula of canvassing the week’s headlines in employer-executive disputes:
- Bloomberg Law reported on a recent ruling by the Delaware Chancery Court that a company officer and trustee could not invoke the attorney-client privilege for communications with their personal attorneys and advisors sent from their work e-mail accounts. The court wrote that the company could access the e-mails because it had reserved the right to do so in its employee manual, and therefore the officer and trustee did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails.
- Pete Brush of Law360 (subscription required) covered the hearing in the New York Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, on claims by a former Intesa SanPaolo executive, Giuseppe Romanella. Romanella alleges that the company illegally fired him after he complained of depression. The company argues that it was allowed to fire him because he refused to provide any reasonable time frame for his return from leave.
- A federal judge tossed a number of claims against Bloomberg LP in an EEOC case alleging that the company discriminated against employees who returned from maternity leave, reported Jonathan Stempel and Jennifer Saba of Reuters. The court found that the EEOC could not pursue a class action because it failed to show that discrimination was Bloomberg’s standard operating practice. Further, the judge said that the EEOC had failed to investigate its individual plaintiffs’ claims and unfairly rebuffed Bloomberg’s attempts to settle. The Wall Street Journal characterized this as a “sue first, investigate later” approach.
The toughest part of this post, for me, is how to categorize this one: does this go in my file of “Things Not To Do At Work?” Or is this one another example of “Lawyers Behaving Badly?” Or maybe “Generally Unacceptable Management Styles?”
Well, I’ll let you decide. But here is the takeaway: however you categorize it, it’s likely a bad idea to tell a woman that works for you that she’s “not that pretty,” that prior female employees were “smart…good-looking…just gorgeous” and used to wear tight sweaters, and that “it’s all been downhill since women got the vote.”
Statements like that can give rise to allegations of gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that can survive a motion to dismiss. That’s what the City of Evanston, Illinois learned last week, in Elke Tober-Purze v. Evanston, pending in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois. Read More ›
In the previous part, we looked at Elke Tober-Purze’s lawsuit against her employer, the City of Evanston. The federal court hearing the case ruled in Tober-Purze’s favor on Evanston’s motion to dismiss her claim that it had discriminated against her by paying her male colleagues more and ultimately terminating her from her job as an assistant city attorney.
In the same opinion, the court also denied Evanston’s motion to dismiss Tober-Purze’s claim for age discrimination based on federal law. That law – the Age Discrimination in Employment Act – requires an aggrieved employee to demonstrate that he or she: 1) is over forty; 2) otherwise meets the employer’s expectations; 3) suffered an adverse employment action – such as being terminated or passed over for promotion; and 4) was treated less favorably than others who are not over forty. Read More ›
Paula Deen Ruling Also Reminds Us: Title VII Protects Employees Who Are Discriminated Against for Their Association with People of Other Races Outside of the Workplace
On Tuesday, we examined the dismissal by a Georgia federal court of Lisa T. Jackson’s race-based discrimination claim against Paula Deen and others, and noted that, under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate against an employee for associating with employees of another race. But we don’t want you to be left with the impression that the association has to be between co-workers. Courts also have recognized “interracial association” Title VII claims for associations occurring outside of the workplace. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is one such court. Read More ›
Paula Deen Ruling Reminds Us: Title VII Protects White Employees Who Are Discriminated Against for Their Association with Black Employees
Last week, a federal court in Georgia dismissed Lisa T. Jackson’s race-based discrimination claim against Paula Deen, her brother Earl “Bubba” Heirs, and their restaurant businesses. Earlier events in the Jackson v. Deen case – including Deen’s deposition testimony and what it may mean for alter ego liability – caught our attention at Suits by Suits. This recent ruling interests us as a reminder that it is not always the case that a white employee who works in an environment that is hostile to blacks has no claim for damages against her employer for race-based discrimination. Read More ›
It’s unseasonably cool here in Washington, DC, where most of our Suits by Suits editors toil. News about the latest in disputes between employers and executives, however, is always in season. Here are the latest headlines:
- Ruth Simon and Angus Loten of the Wall Street Journal brought us this excellent take on the rising tide of non-compete litigation. According to Simon and Loten, non-compete agreements are spreading beyond the executive ranks to sales representatives, engineers, and researchers. For more, check out our ongoing State-by-State Smackdown series on the changing law of non-competes in various states (here, here, here . . . and here).
- A conference call hosted by AOL’s chief exec Tim Armstrong took an unpleasant turn when Armstrong fired – on the spot – Abel Lenz, an employee who was videotaping the call. The New York Times reported that Armstrong later admitted that he made a “mistake” in the hasty firing, which was broadcast to a thousand employees. Lenz’s photos of his last moments at AOL later surfaced online at jimromenesko.com.
- The Third Circuit upheld a decision by the Luzerne County (PA) Retirement Board to terminate the benefits it was paying to a former county clerk, William Brace, based on Brace’s guilty plea to a bribery charge. Brace claimed that the termination violated his constitutional rights, but the court disagreed, holding that Brace was not entitled to a hearing before the decision. Brace’s crime appears to have been the acceptance of a $1,500 tailor-made suit from a county contractor, which puts this case in the unique category of Suits by Suits over Suits.
- Matt Reynolds of Courthouse News Service reported that IMAX has sued a competitor for trade secret misappropriation. IMAX’s complaint alleges that Gary Tsui, a former IMAX employee, sold its 2-D and 3-D conversion technology to the competitor, GDC Technology USA, which is now using the secrets to compete with IMAX. It calls Tsui an “international fugitive.” Sounds like this case may be exciting enough for the big screen.
- A former U.S. Bank manager, Serge Adamov, has successfully appealed the dismissal of his claim that he was terminated in retaliation for complaints of discrimination based on his Azerbaijani origin. The Sixth Circuit held that when an employee does not exhaust his remedies in the Department of Labor before bringing suit in federal court, that failure does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over the case. As a result, because the bank did not raise a failure to exhaust as part of its motion to dismiss Adamov’s suit, the district court could not raise it on its own as a ground to get rid of the claim.
Yes, yes, we’ve asked you before to nominate us to the you-know-what, but we swear this is the very last time because nominations for that prestigious list close today. We only ask because for lawyers who blog, this list is like the Academy Awards, and the Emmys, and the Grammies, and the Country Music Awards, all rolled into one. And at Suits by Suits we are, in fact, ready for our close-up, Mr. DeMille (take the afternoon off if you know what movie that’s from). Thanks if you’ve already nominated us.
We’re not all about awards around here, though. We’re hard at work. While the streets around our Suits by Suits Global Headquarters are notoriously quiet while most folks are at the beach and Congress has left town, we’ve been scouring the planet looking for interesting stories to bring to your attention. We have much to do – the CEO of Amazon is not yet paying $250 million for our work, unlike the venerable blog-printed-on-dead-tree just up the street. Perhaps it’s because they have horoscopes and we don’t.
In any event, here are some more items to add to that stack of must-read beach books: Read More ›
The “Borgata Babes” Case: Is An Employer’s Weight Requirement For Casino Waitresses Gender Discrimination Or An Agreed-To “Reasonable Appearance Standard?” Part 2
Part fashion model, part beverage server, part charming host and hostess. All impossibly lovely. The sensational Borgata Babes are the new ambassadors of hospitality…On a scale of 1 to 10, elevens all.
Eyes, hair, smile, costumes so close to absolute perfection as perfection gets, Borgata Babes do look fabulous, no question. But once you can breathe again, prepare to be taken to another level by the Borgata Babe attitude. The memory of their warm, inviting, upbeat personalities will remain with you long after the vision has faded from your dreams.
- Excerpt from a brochure recruiting candidates to work as “Borgata Babes,” serving drinks in the Borgata casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
In our first post in this series, we looked at the facts of the case that 22 “Borgata Babes” brought against that Atlantic City, New Jersey casino. In their suit, these woman alleged the casino’s enforcement of a weight requirement – no Borgata Babe (the vast majority of whom were women) could gain more than 7% of their weight while employed as “Costumed Beverage Servers” to ferry drinks to high-rollers – was applied in a way that violated New Jersey’s law barring gender discrimination, because female Babes who gained this amount of weight were disciplined or terminated while male Babes who gained weight allegedly were not. Read More ›