Many organizations take great pride in their employment practices striving to keep them free from employment discrimination. For such companies, a discrimination charge or lawsuit strikes at the very core of the organization’s values. For example, AARP was recently sued for age discrimination by an employee who alleges she was passed over for promotions, laid off
Revisiting Baseline Qualifications For Certain Positions: How Objective Qualifications, When Used Properly, Can Save The Day In Defending A Discrimination Claim
In Makky v. Chertoff, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the importance of objective job qualifications in evaluating the merits of a discrimination claim. Employers that establish clear baseline standards for position through their job descriptions, advertisements and other records are better able to defend discrimination claims by showing that the applicant
HR GENERALIST RESOURCES: EEOC Issues New Compliance Assistance on Religious Discrimination and Accommodation
On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new section of its Compliance Manual addressing the subject of religious discrimination. The section "provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion." The new section does not change a Pennsylvania employer’s legal obligations, imposed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
First Amendment Free Speech Protections Limit University’s Enforcement of its Sexual Harassment Policy
A Federal Appeals Court in Philadelphia enjoined Temple University from enforcing its “facially overbroad” sexual harassment policy because some speech that creates a “hostile or offensive environment” may be protected speech under the First Amendment. In DeJohn v. Temple University, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a public university’s Policy on Sexual Harassment that
Legal System to Blame for Humorless Work Environment?
Hard economic times, perpetual threat of layoffs, workers stretched too thin could all be contributing to the “increasingly humorous American workplace” according to MSNBC author Eve Tahmincioglu in her post No joke! The workplace needs a good laugh. However, others are pointing to our legal system’s clamp down on “hostile work environments” as the cause
The Genesis of a New Frontier in Employment Law: What’s “GINA” Got To Do With You?
On May 21, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). GINA amends three employment-related laws including: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII); (2) the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA); and (3) the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While
Employer Bears The Burden Of Proving That Employees Were Terminated For Reasonable Factors Other Than Age
On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court is its decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory holding that an employer defending a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) bears the burden of persuading the factfinder that its use of "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) was reasonable.
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Several Employment-Related Cases
On June 19, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued four employment-related decisions that are briefly summarized as follows:
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory: The government ordered its contractor to reduce its workforce. The contractor had its managers select employees for layoff based on factors including performance, flexibility, critical skills and seniority. The resulting
Job Duty of Getting Coffee for Boss is not Sexual Harassment and Early Departure With Pay is Not Actionable Retaliation
The act of getting coffee is not a gender specific act that can form the basis for a sexual harassment claim according to a recent court decision in Klopfenstein v. National Sales and Supply. The plaintiff had asserted that being compelled to perform what she considered to be a ‘servile task’ was, in and
Genie cannot be put Back in the Bottle once Botched EEOC Filing gets to Court
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Federal Express v. Holowecki decision lowered the bar on what qualifies as a “charge” for purposes of an employee satisfying the procedural prerequisites for getting into court on a federal discrimination claim. Commentators, like Jon Hyman at the Ohio Employer’s Blog, have criticized Holowecki as unfair to employers:
My problem with