Compliance: Employers closely watching Supreme Court’s ruling in Canning

The Court’s ruling will likely define the scope of the president’s recess appointments power for future administrations.

It’s easy to identify recess in an elementary school day: The bell rings, the kids tumble out of class, and the yard fills with playful shrieks and laughter.

Not so with Congress. The U.S. Senate’s chambers may be dark, official business on hold, the senators all home on vacation, and yet the legislative body may still be in session. More ›

First Circuit Clarifies "Severe or Pervasive" Standard in Hostile Work Environment Claim

The employee was hired as the Area Manager for a national company and began experiencing performance problems almost immediately. She was fired less than a year after beginning her employment and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging that she was subject to sexual harassment and was terminated in retaliation after reporting the harassment.   More ›

Release Relapse: EEOC Files Suit Alleging that Employer’s Separation Agreement Violates Title VII

In a lawsuit filed earlier this month in the Eastern District of Northern Illinois, the EEOC has challenged a national employer’s Separation Agreement, and specifically the general release of claims that it asks departing employees to sign. The EEOC specifically alleges that the release violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by interfering with employees’ right “to file a charge” with the EEOC and “to participate and cooperate with an investigation” by the agency. The lawsuit is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the release involved is fairly standard, i.e., there is nothing particularly aggressive about it (with one potential exception, discussed below). Second, the complaint clearly signals the EEOC’s current position on the type of releases commonly used by many employers: any release that could potentially be interpreted to limit employees’ ability to interact with the EEOC may be viewed as a violation of Title VII. More ›

Obama Administration Relaxes Employer Mandate

The moving target that is the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate keeps on moving.

The Treasury Department today issued a rule relaxing important employer requirements under the ACA, foremost among them to postpone the mandate for businesses with between 50 and 99 employees until 2016. More ›

Eighth Circuit: Supervisor Physically Preventing Employee from Leaving Office does not Amount to sex Discrimination or Harassment

The employee, a female graphic designer, was working with her male supervisor when the two got into an argument. The supervisor began screaming and cursing at her, and when the employee attempted to leave, her supervisor put his hand on her multiple times and physically prevented her from leaving for some time before finally letting her go.  More ›

The ADAAA Strikes Again: Fourth Circuit Finds that Employee's Simple, Temporary Knee Injury was w Disability

In a first-of-its-kind decision at the federal appellate level, the Fourth Circuit last week decided whether a temporary, non-recurring impairment can be a disability under the ADA as amended by the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). Unsurprisingly, the court found that it could. More ›

Compliance: Making sense of the myriad tests for independent contractor v. employment status

The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor can have very important consequences, as the two categories receive very different treatment under the law.

To name only a few differences, there are no federal or state income tax withholding obligations for independent contractors; wage and hour laws do not apply to independent contractors; most anti-discrimination laws do not apply to independent contractors. And, of course, the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act does not apply in the case of independent contractors. There is a lot riding on the question. More ›

Seventh Circuit: Employer had Knowledge of Employee's Narcolepsy at time of Termination

In a decision issued last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals once again drove home the point that an employer who ignores or takes action in spite of an employee’s apparent disability does so at its own peril. The case, Spurling v. C&M Fine Pack, Inc., No. 13-1708 (Jan. 13, 2014), involved an employee who – unbeknownst to her or the employer – suffered from narcolepsy. More ›

Fifth Circuit: Race Discrimination claim fails Because Bankruptcy Trustee is not “Employer”

An African-American woman was employed with the office of the Chapter 13 standing trustee for the Western District of Louisiana for 14 years. For the last several years, she served as the office manager. A new trustee came on board in 2008. She and the trustee did not get along, frequently getting into disagreements. Ultimately, after a peer review process, it was recommended that the employee be terminated. When she was replaced by a Caucasian woman, the employee claimed that the Caucasian woman was less qualified than she.

The employee filed suit against the trustee claiming that she was terminated due to her race in violation of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law. After various removal issues, the case ended up in federal district court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, finding that he was not an "employer" under state law. The employee appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed, finding that to qualify as an "employer" under the state statutes, the trustee would have to employ twenty or more employees for twenty or more weeks. The court rejected the employee's assertion that the trustee was part of the larger association of the Chapter 13 system (which employed over 125 employees in the state of Louisiana) because the employee provided no authority or evidence for this position.

For more information read Bell v. Thornburg, No. 13-30155 (5th Cir. December 30, 2013).

Employee’s Failure to Include Discrimination Lawsuit Against Employer in Bankruptcy Schedules Results in Dismissal of Action

An employee of the United States Army alleged that certain adverse employment actions by the Secretary of the Army resulted from discrimination. She filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, but failed to list the discrimination action as an asset on her bankruptcy schedules. Only when the employer moved to dismiss the action on the ground of judicial estoppel did the employee amend her bankruptcy schedules to add this potential asset. The district court found that judicial estoppel barred her action in that there was no evidence to suggest that her original failure to list the discrimination case as an asset was inadvertent or mistaken. Her case was accordingly dismissed.

The employee appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that, in light of the timing of the employee's amendment of her bankruptcy schedules and her choice not to file a declaration explaining her initial error, no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the omission was inadvertent or mistaken. More ›