Showing 74 posts in Discrimination.

Tenth Circuit Finds that Corporations Cannot Suffer From A Hostile Work Environment

March 1, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A cleaning company owned by two white women had a cleaning contract with a city airport. Throughout the period of the contract, the cleaning company’s owners and employees worked with a contract-compliance technician at the airport to arrange for cleaning services. According to the owners of the cleaning company, the technician, an African American male, made discriminatory comments regarding the owners’ gender and race and made the work environment miserable for their employees. When the owners of the cleaning company complained that the airport staff was not treating them well and that the airport was discriminating against the company, the airport terminated the contract. Thereafter, the cleaning company sued the airport and the technician alleging gender and race-based discrimination and a violation of its constitutional rights. More ›

Employee’s Utter Lack of Evidence Leads to Dismissal of All Claims

January 9, 2013 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

MSJs certainly aren't granted as much as they used to be, particularly in the employment context. In this case, however, the employee's failure to produce more than a scintilla of evidence in support of her claims led to a successful MSJ for the individual and entity employer defendants. More ›

Employer not Required to hire Independent Contractors to Accommodate Employee’s Religious Observance

December 21, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Fourth Circuit recently held that an employer did not have to hire independent contractors or take other action which would have been detrimental to other employees in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of one of its drivers. More ›

Christian Employee Lacks Religious Accommodation Claim

November 28, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of accommodations of employees' religious practices. More ›

Physicians Allowed to Proceed with Discrimination Claims Against Health System, Despite Being Employed by Physician Service

September 11, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A recent decision out of a federal court in Pennsylvania demonstrates that large corporate health systems who rely on the use of subsidiaries to limit liability for employee misconduct do so at their own peril. In Ginsburg v. Aria Health Physician Services, E.D. Pa., No. 2:12-cv-1140 (Aug. 31, 2012), the federal judge found that a health system qualified as an “employer” for purposes of state and federal discrimination laws —— even though the plaintiffs' direct employment relationship was with a subsidiary of the health system — because the health system exerted control over the plaintiffs through work rules and discipline. More ›

Sixth Circuit: Mine Operator not Required to Provide Temporary Reinstatement for Miner Pending Outcome of Individual Action

August 27, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently provided insight on a matter of first impression in North Fork Coal Corporation v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The issue considered was whether the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (the “Mine Act”), as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 801–965, mandates that an employee's temporary reinstatement continue after the Secretary of Labor (“Secretary”) determines that his complaint lacks merit. More ›

Eighth Circuit: Police Officer Trainee not Limited to Title VII for Bringing Discrimination Claim

August 1, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In Hensley v. Sgt. Bill Brown et al., No. 11-2561, (8th Cir. July 25, 2012), a police-officer trainee claimed that while in the police academy, she was repeatedly subjected to sexually harassing comments, discriminatory actions, and physical assault by her male trainers. The trainers subsequently issued a memorandum which indicated that she would not be graduating from the academy. She then left the academy and was unable to become a police officer.   More ›

EEOC Issues Guidance on Employers’ use of Arrest and Conviction Records

April 26, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

When can an employer conduct a criminal background check on an applicant or existing employee?   More ›

EEOC: Discrimination Based on Gender Identity Violates Title VII

April 24, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The EEOC issued its decision in Macy v. Holder  yesterday in which it held that an employer who discriminates against an applicant or an employee on the basis of gender identity violates Title VII's prohibitions against sex discrimination.  

Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Employer in Reverse-Race Discrimination Case

March 15, 2012 by Ambrose V. McCall

In Good v. University of Chicago Medical Center, No. 1102679 (7th Cir. 3/12/2012), Plaintiff Good appealed the summary judgment entered by a district court that tossed her claim of reverse-race discrimination. Plaintiff previously worked as a lead technologist in the medical center's radiology department. While admitting there were issues with her job performance, she asserted that her white race was the reason she was terminated rather than demoted as occurred with employees of other races. Because defendants had obtained summary judgment, the Seventh Circuit construed all facts and drew all inferences in favor of Plaintiff. The medical center used a four step corrective and progressive action policy, under which an employee who failed a performance improvement plan, ["PIP"], could be terminated. The policy manual, however, also stated that it was the policy of the employer "to demote [an] individual" who "cannot perform...her assigned job responsibilities" as a result of "her skills [] not [being] matched to the requirements of the job" or because the employee "lack[s]...motivation to perform up to standards." But unlike other employees, managers who worked in the radiology department were held to a higher standard based on their additional responsibilities. Though managerial employees could be terminated at any time, some managers were demoted rather than subjected to the harsher regime of corrective treatments which included PIPs, new probationary periods, or discharge. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives