Showing 73 posts in Title VII.

Seventh Circuit: Physician’s State-Court suit Challenging Denial of Privileges Precluded Subsequent Federal Discrimination Claim

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reminded one Illinois physician that he only gets one bite at the apple when it comes to federal discrimination claims— and the case presents a unique and potentially powerful new defense for employers of physicians and other regulated professionals. The case, Dookeran v. County of Cook, No. 11-3197 (7th Cir. May 3, 2013), arose when the defendant hospital denied the plaintiff physician’s reappointment following his two-year review, during which he acknowledged for the first time that he had been reprimanded by his former employer for creating a hostile work environment. The physician subsequently filed suit in Illinois state court requesting judicial review of the hospital’s decision under a writ of common-law certiorari and, at the same time but in a separate EEOC action, he lodged charges of race and national origin discrimination. The Illinois courts upheld the decision to deny his privileges in the certiorari suit. Shortly after that state court proceeding had concluded, however, the physician received an EEOC right-to-sue letter and filed a second lawsuit against the hospital in federal court.  More ›

School District Prevails in Title VII Retaliation case Filed by Basketball Coach

A high school girls varsity basketball coach sued a school district for gender discrimination after the school failed to hire her as the boys varsity basketball coach. The court found in favor of the coach and ordered the district to hire her as varsity coach for both the boys and girls basketball teams. More ›

Seventh Circuit Orders Jury Trial Because Employer Couldn’t Prove date of Phone Call Triggering Title VII’s 300-Day Limitations Period

A Wisconsin employer is facing a federal jury trial, all because it failed to properly document a simple phone call. In a decision issued yesterday, Begolli v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al, No. 12-1875 (7th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals revived a plaintiff’s discrimination claim against the employer after a lower court had dismissed the suit, finding that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff had filed within Title VII's 300-day limitations period. The trial was necessary because the employer could not prove when it had called the plaintiff to deny his employment application. More ›

Christian Employee Lacks Religious Accommodation Claim

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

Compensation System Found to be Race-Neutral and not in Violation of Title VII

A group of brokers filed suit against their employer firm claiming race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981 on the grounds that the firm’s “teaming” and account-distribution policies prevented black brokers from obtaining lucrative assignments and earning greater compensation. Thereafter, the firm was acquired by a bank, and the companies commenced a “retention-incentive program” which was designed to compensate brokers based upon their previous levels of production. A second lawsuit was filed against both the bank and the firm, alleging that the new program was similarly violative of Title VII because the new plan incorporated policies which were derivative of the prior firm’s discriminatory practices. More ›

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

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 ›

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

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 ›

Illinois Court: Participation in Employer’s own Discrimination Investigation After EEOC Complaint is Protected Activity Under Title VII

It is generally a rule that an employer may discipline its employee for his behavior during an internal investigation of alleged discrimination. A federal district court in Northern Illinois recently joined the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, however, in recognizing an exception to that rule: where the investigation occurs after a complaint has been filed, employees who participate are protected from discipline by Title VII. More ›

Wal-Mart Follows Properly-Drafted Accommodation Policy, Still ends up Potentially Liable for Retaliation

The Seventh Circuit issued a decision earlier this week which reminds employers that following a properly-drafted policy does not necessarily guarantee freedom from legal complications in all cases. More ›

Illegal Alien Status not a Protected Class Under Title VII

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an employer bank did not unlawfully discriminate against a female employee based on her husband’s immigration status. More ›