February: Legal SettlementsBy Jessica Bray
EEOC Reports Rise of 9% in Job Bias Charges in 2007The EEOC has reported the highest number of incoming discrimination charges in the last five years. It received a total of 82,792 private sector discrimination charge filings last fiscal year, which is the largest annual increase (9%) since the early 1990s. The data also shows that the EEOC recovered $345 million in monetary relief for job bias victims. To view the data, go to www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html. Race, sex and retaliation charges were the most frequently filed charges, continuing a long-term trend. Additionally, nearly all major charge categories showed double-digit percentage increases from the prior year, which according to the EEOC is a rare occurrence. According to the EEOC, the jump in charge filings may be due to a combination of factors, including greater awareness of the law, changing economic conditions, and increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor force.
DC Enacts Paid Sick Leave BillOn March 4th, the District of Columbia passed legislation that guarantees eligible employees paid time off to treat their own illness or care for a sick child. DC is only the second city in the U.S., after San Francisco in 2006, to require paid sick leave. Victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse also will have access to the paid sick days to deal with those issues. The bill covers full-time employees who have worked for their employers for a year. Employees whose employers have 100 or more workers will earn seven days of paid sick leave a year; employees working for employers with 25 to 99 employees will earn five days of paid sick leave; and those at employers with 24 or fewer workers will earn three days. The U.S. Congress has 90 days to review the measure before it becomes effective.
The Supreme Court Rules Employees Can Sue for Breach of Fiduciary Duty under ERISA for Losses Suffered in Their Individual AccountsLast week in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., No. 06-856, the Supreme Court held that while ERISA §502(a)(2) does not allow a remedy for individual injuries apart from plan injuries, it does permit individuals to recover for harm to their individual account assets due to a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff in this case suffered losses to his 401(k) account assets as a result of administrators to plan failing to follow his instructions to move his assets to safer investments. He sued for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The Fourth Circuit, relying on the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, held that the plaintiff could not seek individual relief under ERISA § 502(a)(2) because recovery under that provision must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole and not to an individual plan participant. In overruling the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court noted that today's benefit plans are defined contribution plans, as opposed to the plan examined in Russell, which was a disability plan that did not have individual accounts. The Court found that with today's plans "fiduciary misconduct need not threaten the solvency of the entire plan to reduce benefits below the amount that participants would otherwise receive." The Court then held that "although §502(a)(2) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, that provision does authorize recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a participant's individual account."
Massachusetts Federal Court Rules Firing Employee for Off-Premises Smoking May Violate ERISA and State Privacy LawA federal district court in Massachusetts has allowed a lawsuit to proceed that alleges the plaintiff was terminated for off-premises smoking in violation of Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Massachusetts Privacy Act. Rodrigues v. The Scotts Co., LLC. The employer had adopted a policy prohibiting smoking at any time and at any place, including outside of the workplace, in order to save money on medical insurance costs and promote a healthy lifestyle among its employees. The employee was fired after he took and failed a urine test for nicotine shortly after being hired. Under ERISA §510, an employer may not terminate a plan participant for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which he may become entitled under the employer's benefit plans. The plaintiff argued in this case that terminating his employment because he was a smoker interfered with his attainment of the right to participate in the employee benefits plan, to which he would have become entitled had he remained employed. The court held that "the ultimate inquiry in a Section 510 case is whether the employment action was taken with the specific intent of interfering with the employee's ERISA benefits." The Massachusetts Privacy Act protects individuals from unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference with their privacy. In determining whether an employer has violated an employee's right to privacy, courts usually balance the employer's legitimate business interests against the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the court in this case suggested a potentially narrower balancing test in the employment context: whether the employer's legitimate interest in determining the employees' effectiveness in their jobs outweighs the intrusion on the employees' privacy. The court found it was "plausible" that the employee's stated privacy interest outweighed the employer's "interest in a generally healthy workforce that will have high productivity and low health-care costs."
The 6th Circuit Recognizes Title VII Claim for Coworker Retaliation In Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., the Sixth Circuit ruled that in appropriate circumstances, Title VII permits claims against an employer for coworker retaliation. An employer will be liable if:
1st Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment for Defendants in Harassment CaseIn Billings v. Town of Grafton, No. 06-2145, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for the town. The case involved claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law. The 1st Circuit ruled as a matter of law that the district court erred in finding that:
Jury Awards $110,000 to Teenager in Sexual Harassment Case Against Houston DrycleanerA federal district court jury has entered a verdict in the amount of $110,000 against a Houston dry cleaner for sexual harassment. The EEOC charged that the owner of Bellair Cleaners, Inc. harassed a 19-year-old female employee, as well as other women. The EEOC presented evidence at trial that Nazir Ali, the company's male owner, inappropriately touched the teenage employee, made offensive remarks to her, and kept her against her will during a long car ride while he graphically described his sexual appetites and intent to have sex with her against her will.
Editor's Note: The items presented above contain only selected employment law cases and do not represent a comprehensive listing of all employment law settlements, awards and decisions in the United States. This information has been abridged from many different sources, and Diversity Central and EPS make no claims to any original copyrighted works. Diversity Central and EPS do not guarantee the accurateness of excerpts, articles, or information contained in this list.
Read more:
|
Home | Diversity Store | Diversity Events | Jobs | Consultants | Submissions | Customer Service | Search the Site
© 2008 The GilDeane Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Information on this site may not be reproduced in part or in full in any form without written permission from The GilDeane Group, Inc. 13751 Lake City Way NE, Suite 210, Seattle, Washington, 98125-8612.
