Showing posts with label Title VII. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Title VII. Show all posts

Seventh Circuit: Kimberly Flanagan v. Office of the Chief Judge

Plaintiff's report of being told by a co-worker that others were conspiring to kill her was inadmissible double hearsay.

Ominous threats in parking lot were scattered empty threats, insufficient to state a claim for a hostile work environment.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-15/C:16-1927:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:fnOp:N:2171849:S:0

Ninth Circuit: Patricia Campbell v. EDU-HI

Employer's loss of a performance report is not, by itself, an adverse employment action. 

Investigation of employee that did not affect her working conditions was not an adverse employment action; the suggestion that others were placed on paid leave while under investigation did not make the continued conditions of employment an adverse action.

Denial of transfer not adverse, since application was untimely.

Music and dance teacher did not establish that classes other than remedial math were available to teach; the assignment therefore was not an adverse one.

Lack of comparators for most claims.

Claim of hostile work environment from student animus is defeated by district's incremental and timely response.

Employer's speech in workplace reasonable.

As no adverse action, no retaliation; actions had sufficient neutral justification.

Standards for Title VII claim identical to Title IX claim.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/11/15-15939.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Warren Johnson v. Advocate Health and Hospitals

Reported statement of partially anonymous comparator as to their pay is neither hearsay nor sufficient to establish the validity of the comparator.

Descriptions of comaparators on unfair promotion claim, unfair assignments claim, and termination claim were not specific enough to establish them as legitimate.

Sworn statements and depositions averring discriminatory language suffice to present an issue for trial.

Even where a contractor performs many supervisory duties, a supervening agent who retains the ability to hire, fire, and discipline workers (beyond "rubber stamp" approval) can be liable for a claim of workplace discrimination.

Concur/Diss:  Reported workplace speech was too sporadic to present an issue of a hostile work environment.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-08/C:16-3848:J:Rovner:aut:T:fnOp:N:2168250:S:0

First Circuit: Caraballo-Caraballo v. Administracion de Correccion

In assessing comparators for a claim of workplace discrimination, the plaintiff's demonstrated ability in performing the present job should be taken into account.

Transfer to the Commissary, even absent diminution in rank or pay, was a sufficiently adverse employment action.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1597P-01A.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Deadra Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas


Title VII, Fees


Degree of success is the most important consideration when deciding whether to adjust lodestar fee award.

Abuse of discretion to revise lodestar downward due solely to proportionality to award won; the appropriate consideration is ratio of award won to award sought.

Deadra Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas

Seventh Circuit: Laura Hatcher v. Board of Trustees


Employment, Discrimination, Title VII


Employee's mistaken belief that statute compelled reporting of misconduct did not transform the speech in the context of employment to protected speech.

No genuine issue of fact over pretextual nature of nondiscriminatory motive, given decisions of impartial committee and subjective judgement of decisionmaker. 


Laura Hatcher v.   Board of Trustees

Eighth Circuit: Lovelle Banks v. John Deere and Company


FRCP, Discrimination, Title VII


Unsworn testimony and a party's own interrogatories provided  insufficient evidence that the employment action and work environment were inappropriately race-based.

Lovelle Banks  v.  John Deere and Company

Eighth Circuit: Gary Smith v. United Parcel Service


Discrimination (Title VII?)


Plaintiff did not establish pretextual nature of claim that conduct presented a nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.



Gary Smith  v.  United Parcel Service

First Circuit: Burns v. Johnson


Discrimination, Title VII, Employment


Circumstantial evidence can suffice to establish a claim under a mixed-motive theory of discrimination.

Discrimination need not be both severe and pervasive.

Fear of retaliation presents a genuine issue of material fact as to employer liability, despite reporting procedures.


Burns v. Johnson

Second Circuit: Walsh v. NYCHA


Title VII, Discrimination

Evidence as to whether the hiring decision was discriminatory must be considered holistically.

Dissent -- Totality analysis problematic when asserting pretext.


Walsh v. NYCHA

DC Circuit: Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack

Title VII, Employment, Administrative

ALJ dismissal of hearing request was not final agency action that started the Title VII clock.

Subsequent similar letter did not start the clock as it omitted the statutorily required notice of the right to appeal.

Genuine issue of material fact as to agency employment given responsibilities and reporting relationships.



Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack

Seventh Circuit: Arlene Simpson v. St. James Hospital


Discrimination, Title VII

Anecdotal evidence insufficient to establish valid comparators.


Arlene Simpson v. St. James Hospital

Fifth Circuit: Noris Rogers v. Pearland Indep School District

FRCP, Title VII,

Mere statement asserting claim is not enough to preserve disparate impact theory of claim.

Difference between comparator's criminal record and that of plaintiff establishes that they are not similarly situated.

Dissent: Comparator valid, since the relevant bit is that the convictions were not disclosed on the application form.


Noris Rogers v. Pearland Indep School District

Fifth Circuit: Ronald Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas, et al

Discrimination

As a similarly situated comparator was also terminated and the variance in the comparator's severance can be explained by differences in their situations, no Title VII racial discrimination claim.

No ADEA retaliation, as termination occurred 21 months after initial complaint, with a lateral transfer interposed.

State statute limiting reduction in pay does not place a restriction on at-will nature of employment sufficient for a property interest in continued employment.  Conceding at-will employment relative to one supervisor ends the property interest generally.

Statute allowing appointment to state office by elected official does not prevent another arm of the government from terminating the employment.

No abuse of discretion in district court's refusal to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over whistleblower claims.


Ronald Heggemeier v. Caldwell County, Texas, et al

Eighth Circuit: Herman Hutton v. Danny Maynard, Sr.

Discrimination

Discriminatory language used by employer between an employee's promotion of a minority candidate and the subsequent dismissal of the employee is insufficient to prove direct causation, and where the language is not employment-related, it is insufficient to establish indirect causation.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/02/151300P.pdf

Seventh Circuit: Terry Deets v. Massman Construction Company

Employment, Discrimination

Statement by employer that percentage of minority employees was to low creates genuine issue of material fact as to whether the subsequent layoff of a worker who had recently lost seniority was discriminatory.

Mitigation as an affirmative defense for Title VII operates as a damages offset.

S1981 allows suits against corporate entities in joint venture, as it contemplates interference with contracts.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:15-1411:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697105:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Ratna Bagwe v. Sedgwick Claims Management Service

Employment, discrimination

Where rebuttal of nondiscriminatory motive includes both direct and indirect methods of proof, appellate review analyses both separately.

No direct evidence, insufficient comparators.

Small pay decision is timely, can be considered separately.

Employer response on compensation that only discussed raises suffices to challenge broad compensation argument.

Insufficient proof of retaliation.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-26/C:14-3201:J:Ripple:aut:T:fnOp:N:1692303:S:0


Fifth Circuit: Ambrea Fairchild v. All Amer Check Cashing, Inc.

Employment, FRE

FLSA requires actual knowledge by the employer that the emplyee is working overtime - possible discovery in computer usage records is insufficient to impute.

No abuse of discretion in barring party-opponent hearsay exception for non-workplace statement by supervisor not directly involved in the case's statement of improper reason for dismissal.

Sufficient showing of non-pretextual nondiscriminatory reason for action.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-60190-CV0.pdf






Eighth Circuit: David Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metro. Police Dept.

Title VII, S1983 Conspiracy

Denial of sought-for promotion is an adverse employment action where the change would have been marked by a material change in working conditions.

Conspiracy verdict upheld where the jury might have inferred that knowledge of the discrimination demonstrated active complicity in the discrimination.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/143696P.pdf


Seventh Circuit: Roberta Jaburek v. Anthony Foxx

FRCP, Title VII

No error in the denial of motion to reconsider grant of extension of time to file, as opposing counsel had gout.

Summary judgment against plaintiff on lack of promotion upheld, as plaintiff merely claimed that she was doing the work equivalent of the higher position, and never actually applied for the position.  Comparators antedated her employment.

Insufficient definition of core tasks.

No retaliation absent proof of cognizable assertion prior to adverse action.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D01-13/C:15-2165:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1686153:S:0