EEOC Lawsuits Seeks to Extend Title VII to Sexual Orientation

Foulston Siefkin LLP, Lexology

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which applies employers with 15 or more employees) prohibits discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sex. The law doesn’t mention sexual orientation as among the protected categories and many courts, including the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Kansas employers), have concluded that Title VII does not in fact protect employees from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. That said, courts have concluded discrimination “based on sex” includes harassment and adverse actions based on sex-stereotyping. In other words, discrimination against a woman because she does not conform to feminine or female-specific norms or stereotypes; or against a man because he does not conform to masculine or male-specific norms or stereotypes.

Read the story (Part I) here. View part II, part III, and part IV.

Related content:

• 3 Strategies for Employers in Light of the EEOC’s Title VII Lawsuits Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP)

Lessons Learned From the Latest List of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Settlements

Fisher & Phillips , Lexology

Several recent settlements between the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and employers in Pennsylvania underscore the importance of proper policies and procedures in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). While neither the court nor a jury of fact-finders reached the merits of the following cases, the alleged facts and claims—and disclosed settlement amounts—remind employers to review policies and procedures to ensure that employers are compliant with the law and following best practices in their industry as to employment-related decisions.

Read the story here.

Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory adverse employment actions

Lexology
Ogletree Deakins
Maria Greco Danaher
USA

March 19 2012

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against “any individual" on the basis of membership in a protected class. In a reminder to employers, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reiterated the generally accepted interpretation that in this language, Title VII explicitly allows former employees, as well as current ones, to bring an action under that statute. Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, 4th Cir., No.11-1218, 3/16/12.

Full Story:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=13621da0-614f-4802-9050-0a2612e38879&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-03-23&utm_term=

EEOC extends employer recordkeeping requirements to GINA

Lexology
Blank Rome LLP
Stephanie L. Aranyos
USA

February 8 2012

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently published its final rule extending the recordkeeping requirements imposed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to employers covered by Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This rule will take effect on April 3, 2012.

Title II of GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts acquisition of genetic information by covered employers and entities, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. GINA covers employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, joint labor-management training programs, and federal sector employers.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a09b0ea7-ee36-4d3f-a780-07f40274fadd&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+federal+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2012-02-14&utm_term=

First Circuit rules that interviewing an applicant is not an admission that the applicant is qualified for the position

Lexology.com
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
USA
December 14 2011


In Goncalves v. Plymouth County Sheriff’s Dep’t, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that allowing an applicant to proceed through the stages of a hiring process is not an admission that the applicant was qualified for the position or similarly situated to other applicants for purposes of state and federal anti-discrimination laws.

Plaintiff Joy Goncalves was a 49 year old Cape Verdean woman who worked for the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department and had applied for a promotion to two different information technology (IT) positions. Both positions called for an associate’s degree in a computer-related field, at least three years of relevant work experience, and three or more years of experience using certain web development and interface software. The Sheriff’s Department considered a number of applicants for each position, including two white applicants who were younger than the plaintiff. The application process involved several stages, including a panel interview and an examination that tested the applicants’ IT knowledge. Although the plaintiff was allowed to complete all stages of the application process, she scored considerably lower than the two white applicants at both the interview and the examination stages. As a result, the Sheriff’s Department hired the two white applicants rather than the plaintiff.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=60a78dda-5435-401d-b488-082e0dcd6ddd&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-12-22&utm_term=

Whitehall Health Care of Ann Arbor Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
12/9/11


Nursing Home Fired Jehovah’s Witness Because of Her Need to Attend Religious Services, Federal Agency Charged

DETROIT — An Ann Arbor, Mich., nursing home violated federal law when it fired a Jehovah’s Witness based on her religion and need for a religious accommodation, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it filed today.

According to the EEOC’s suit (Case No. 2:11-cv-15407), filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Whitehall Healthcare terminated the discrimination victim, a Jehovah’s Witness from Ann Arbor, from her job as a certified nursing assistant due to her need to have Wednesdays and Sundays off to attend religious services.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees against discrimination based on religion and requires employers to provide employees with reasonable accommodations to allow them to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC is seeking an injunction to prohibit the company from engaging in this type of discrimination in the future, as well as monetary relief on the behalf of the victim.

“An employer has a legal duty to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, plain and simple,” said Lauren Gibbs, trial attorney for the EEOC's Detroit Field Office. “Firing someone for asserting that right violates federal law against religious discrimination and only makes a bad situation worse.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-09-11.cfm

Justice Department Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 13, 2011

Justice Department Settles Religious Discrimination Lawsuit Against Berkeley School District in Illinois

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has entered into a consent decree with the Board of Education of Berkeley School District 87 in Berkeley, Ill. that, if approved by the court, will resolve a religious accommodations lawsuit filed in December 2010. In its lawsuit, the United States alleged that the school district violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of Safoorah Khan, a Muslim teacher at McArthur Middle School.
“Employees should not have to choose between practicing their religion and their jobs,” said Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The facts of this case show the consequences of an employer refusing to engage in any interactive process to understand and work with an employee to find an accommodation of the employee’s religious beliefs that will not cause undue hardship to the employer. We are pleased that Berkeley School District has agreed to implement a training program that puts into place an interactive process to ensure that each request for a religious accommodation will be considered on a case-by-case basis and granted if it poses no undue hardship on the school district.”
The government’s complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, alleged that Ms. Khan requested an unpaid leave of absence in December 2008 to perform Hajj, a pilgrimage required by her religion, Islam. According to the complaint, Berkeley School District denied Ms. Khan a reasonable accommodation of her religious practice, compelling Ms. Khan to choose between her job and her religious beliefs, thus forcing her discharge. The United States also alleged that the school district maintains a policy under which it refuses to grant leave to non-tenured teachers as an accommodation for their religious practices if the leave requested is not already provided for in the school district’s leave policy.
The lawsuit was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Ms. Khan with the Chicago District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Ms. Khan’s charge, finding reasonable cause to believe that Berkeley School District had discriminated against Ms. Khan, and unsuccessfully attempting to conciliate the matter, the EEOC referred the charge to the Department of Justice.
Under the terms of the consent decree, Berkeley School District will pay $75,000 to Ms. Khan for lost back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Berkeley School District also is required to develop and distribute a religious accommodation policy consistent with Title VII’s requirement to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs, practices and/or observances of all employees and prospective employees. In addition, Berkeley School District is required to provide mandatory training on religious accommodation to all board of education members, supervisors, managers, administrators and human resources officials who participate in decisions on religious accommodation requests made by its employees and prospective employees.
This is the first lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice as a result of a pilot project designed to ensure vigorous enforcement of Title VII against state and local governmental employers by enhancing cooperation between the EEOC and the Civil Rights Division.
“As the favorable resolution of this case demonstrates, closer collaboration between the EEOC and the Department of Justice will strengthen the enforcement of this nation’s civil rights laws,” said Jacqueline A. Berrien, Chair of the EEOC. “Our partnership is critical to ensuring that workplaces are free of bias.”
Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender, race, color, national origin or religion, and prohibits retaliation against an employee who opposes an unlawful employment practice, or because the employee has made a charge or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under the Act. More information about Title VII and other federal employment laws is available on the Department of Justice website at www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/index.html.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its website at www.eeoc.gov.
11-1362
Civil Rights Division

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-crt-1362.html

Ruling: Discrimination Law Applies Individually Within Protected Classes

Workforce Management
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ‘would have little force if an employer could defeat a claim of discrimination by treating a single member of the protected class in accordance with the law,’ said the unanimous ruling.

August 15, 2011
Ruling: Discrimination Law Applies Individually Within Protected Classes
Discrimination against one member of a minority group violates federal discrimination law no matter how well another member of the same minority may have been treated, says a federal appellate court decision, in overturning a lower court ruling.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “would have little force if an employer could defeat a claim of discrimination by treating a single member of the protected class in accordance with the law,” said the unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/ruling-discrimination-law-applies-individually-within.php

Employer's swift and serious response to initial complaint of discrimination pays off

Lexology.com
Fenwick & West LLP
Victor Schachter and Betsy White
USA
April 8 2011

A recently issued decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals (Boston), Wilson v. Moulison North Corporation, provides an excellent example of how employers can avoid liability for harassment through preventive measures and follow-through. Plaintiff, an African-American employee, brought a Title VII action against his employer alleging race-based hostile work environment and retaliation. After receiving racial slurs and racially derogatory statements from his co-workers during his first week of employment, the plaintiff telephoned Moulison, the company's owner and chief executive, and told him what had happened.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=042444c5-33f9-4d17-86a4-76c711779780&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-04-21&utm_term=

Ralph Jones Sheet Metal Settles EEOC Racial Harassment Suit for $160,000

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
4-22-11

White Supervisor Routinely Insulted and Demeaned African-Americans, Federal Agency Charges

MEMPHIS, Tenn. – Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., an architectural sheet metal company located in Memphis, will pay $160,000 to former African-American employees to settle a racial harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
In its lawsuit, the EEOC charged that a white supervisor and other employees subjected African-American employees to racially offensive comments. The EEOC charged that the supervisor regularly referred to African-American employees with the epithet “n----r” and used other slurs. In addition, the EEOC charged that racial graffiti was on display in common areas and on company equipment.
Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit, No. 2:09-cv-02636, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, after first attempting to settle the matter through its conciliation process.
In addition to monetary relief, the 18-month consent decree settling the lawsuit provides for training on employee rights under Title VII, and requires Ralph Jones Sheet Metal to maintain records of racial harassment complaints, provide annual reports to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees about the lawsuit that includes the EEOC’s contact information.
“Employees should not have to endure a racially hostile work environment as it is a violation of federal law,” said Faye Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office. “It is appalling that racial harassment and the use of racial slurs remain so pervasive in today’s workplace. The EEOC will continue to forcefully fight against this misconduct.”
According to company information, Ralph Jones Sheet Metal fabricates and installs architectural panels made from aluminum composite, copper and stainless steel.
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

Belk, Inc. To Pay $55,000 To Settle EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-16-11

Major Store Unlawfully Fired Jehovah’s Witness for Refusing to Wear Santa Garb, Federal Agency Charged

RALEIGH , N.C. – Belk, Inc. will pay $55,000 and furnish other relief to settle a religious discrimin­ation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today. The EEOC had charged in its lawsuit that Belk violated federal law when it failed to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and then fired her because of her religion.
According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, during the 2008 Christmas holiday season, Belk, Inc. required Myra Jones-Abid, who worked at Belk’s Crabtree Valley Mall store in Raleigh, to wear a Santa hat and apron. Jones-Abid’s religion, Jehovah’s Witnesses, prohibits her from recognizing holidays, and therefore she declined to wear the holiday garb. On November 27, 2008, Belk terminated Jones-Abid for refusing to wear the apparel.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to attempt to make reasonable accommo­dations to sincerely held religious beliefs of employees as long as this poses no undue hardship. The EEOC filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina (EEOC v. Belk, Inc., Civil Action No. 5:10-CV-00300) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
In addition to paying monetary relief to Jones-Abid, the settlement requires Belk to take other actions, including providing annual training on religious discrimination to all of its managers and supervisors at the store where Jones-Abid worked. In addition, Belk must post there a notice on employees’ rights under federal anti-discrimination laws and provide periodic reports to the EEOC on actions taken in response to employees who have requested religious accommodations.
“No employee should be forced to choose between her faith and her job,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, which includes the EEOC’s Raleigh Area Office, where the charge was filed. “ This case demonstrates the EEOC’s commitment to combat religious discrimination in the workplace.”
According to company information, Charlotte, N.C.-headquartered Belk, Inc. is the nation’s largest privately owned mainline department store company, with more than 300 fashion department stores in 16 contiguous Southern states.
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-16-11.cfm

United Air Temp / Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-21-11

Company Paid Non-Caucasian Employees Less Because of Race, Federal Agency Charged

ALEXANDRIA , Va. – United Air Temp / Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., located in Lorton, Va., violated federal law by discriminating against non-Caucasian employees based on their race by paying them less than at least one Caucasian colleague, the U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. United Air Temp, which provides preventive maintenance for residential and commercial heating and air conditioning systems, has approximately 247 employees at 13 locations within Florida, Georgia, the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Maryland.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, from around Feb. 1, 2001, until around April 20, 2006, Patricia Burch, who is African-American, and other non-Caucasian telemarketers were paid less than a Caucasian telemarketer because of their race. The lawsuit alleges that Burch was one of ten telemarketers employed by United Air Temp in Lorton. According to the EEOC, a Caucasian telemarketer who performed the same job, or a substantially similar job as Burch and other non-Caucasian telemarketers, made a higher hourly wage than the non-Caucasian telemarketers. The EEOC’s complaint further charged that Burch complained to United Air Temp’s management about the pay disparity to no avail. Burch’s base salary remained the same until her separation from United Air Temp around April 20, 2006.
Race discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division (EEOC v. United Air Temp, Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-281) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief.
“Pay equity is a basic tenet of equal opportunity in the workplace,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District office. “The unfortunate reality is that some employers continue to base employee salaries on race instead of fair and equitable factors such as the quality of their work. Employers must treat employees of all races equally.”
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at its website at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-21-11a.cfm

Are English-only policies a business necessity?

Lexology.com
Hunton & Williams LLP
USA
March 10 2011

During the past 50 years, the American workforce has changed drastically. One of the most noticeable changes has been the absorption of immigrants into the workforce who do not speak English as their first language.
In response to the increased linguistic diversity of the workforce, many employers have implemented policies that limit or completely prohibit their employees from speaking languages other than English while at work. These so called “English-only” polices may violate the national origin protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers that implement these policies are at risk of being sued not only by employees who feel wronged by the policy, but also by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Employers should be aware that for the past 10 years the EEOC has been targeting employers that implement English-only policies. In fact, the EEOC has made clear through numerous press releases and strategic litigation efforts that combating English-only policies is a priority.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c416ed6e-bc37-4700-a8d0-1947d178fbeb&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Other+states+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2011-03-18&utm_term=

Jury Awards over $1.5 Million in EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Case Against Mid-American Specialties

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
3-4-11

MEMPHIS, Tenn. A U.S. District Court jury brought in a verdict of over $1.5 million for sexual harassment and retaliation in the U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) lawsuit against Mid-American Specialties (Mid- American), a Memphis-based company that distributes promotional products and office supplies, the agency announced today. The verdict came after a trial presided over by Chief Judge Jon P. McCalla. The actual jury award included more than $400,000 in compensatory damages and back pay to three women and $1.1 million in punitive damages.“The jury verdict is an important vindication of the EEOC’s long-standing commitment to securing fair and equal treatment for all women in the work place,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “The EEOC will continue to be vigorous in its enforcement of the federal laws protecting workers from sexual harassment and retaliation.”The EEOC’s lawsuit, Civil Action No. 2:09-cv-02203-JMP, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, charged Mid-American with subjecting three former female employees in Memphis to sexual harassment, and retaliating against two of the women for reporting the harassment. This conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits harassment based on sex and retaliation against those who protest it.
“We hope for amicable resolutions but are prepared to try cases to vindicate legal violations,” said EEOC General Counsel P. David Lopez. “Recent sexual harassment cases such as this one as well as the large verdict we received against Paul’s Big M in New York, demonstrate that juries support the EEOC’s continued vigorous enforcement.” The jury found that two male managers at Mid-American subjected female subordinates to severe, unwelcome sexual harassment. According to trial testimony, one manager exposed his genitals and forced one of the women to place her hand on his private parts. There was further testimony that another manager made demands for women to participate in a “kissing” or “smooching” club in order to receive the sales leads and accounts necessary for the women to earn commissions.The trial evidence further showed that as a result of their rejection of managers’ sexual advances and complaints about the harassment, Mid-American fired two of the women. During the two years that the harassment took place, Mid-American had no sexual harassment policy, no training on sexual harassment, and no reporting procedures. Company officials testified that they did not think that such policies and procedures were necessary, so the complaints of the women fell on deaf ears. The human resources manager testified that she did not even know the definition of sexual harassment at the time of the events."This jury verdict sends the strongest possible message to employers that sexual harassment and retaliation should never be tolerated in the work place,” said Faye A. Williams, EEOC regional attorney in Memphis. “The jury award further shows that employers without sexual harassment policies and procedures for handling complaints promptly and effectively are taking major risks.”"Three women displayed tremendous courage in confronting egregious sexual harassment by their supervisors. The jury's verdict vindicates their courage and sends a message to the defendant that complaints about sexual harassment should never result in termination," said Kenneth Anderson, EEOC lead trial attorney.The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-4-11.cfm

Employer Liable for Discriminatory Adviser in Firing: Supreme Court

Workforce Management
March 1, 2011

The high court ruled 8-0 in favor of overturning the 7th Circuit opinion, with Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas supporting a concurring opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan not taking part in the decision.

Employers can be held liable for discriminatory conduct even if the person making the decision was not discriminatory but relied in part on those who were, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled March 1.
The court’s unanimous ruling in Vincent E. Staub v. Proctor Hospital supports what is called the “cat’s paw” theory of liability.
According to the opinion, Staub, an angiography technician at Proctor Hospital in Peoria, Illinois, was a member of the U.S. Army Reserve, which required him to attend drills one weekend per month and train full time two to three weeks a year.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/employer-liable-discriminatory-adviser-firing-supreme.php

First Circuit holds that Title VII does not protect employees from the "ordinary slings and arrows that suffuse the workplace every day."

Employment Law Matters
Posted on January 3, 2011 by Maria Danaher

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminds us that while Congress’ antidiscrimination laws are designed to protect workers’ rights, they are “not intended to function as a collective panacea for every work-related experience that is in some respect unjust, unfair, or unpleasant.” Consistent with this statement, the court dismissed the claims of four female radiology technicians who complained that their supervisor’s abrasive behavior and its resulting “nerve-wracking” work environment caused each of them to leave her employment at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. Ahern, et al v. Shinseki, 1st Cir., 09-1985, December 13, 2010.

http://www.employmentlawmatters.net/2011/01/articles/title-vii-1/first-circuit-holds-that-title-vii-does-not-protect-employees-from-the-ordinary-slings-and-arrows-that-suffuse-the-workplace-every-day/

Measurement Incorporated Pays $110,000 To Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
PRESS RELEASE
1-6-11

DURHAM, N.C. – A Durham, N.C.-based educational testing company will pay $110,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The EEOC had charged that Measurement Incorporated discriminated against Jacqueline Dukes when it fired her for refusing to work on her Sabbath. Dukes is a member of a Christian denomination called Children of Yisrael which prohibits its members from working on the Sabbath, from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants because of their religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
In addition to the $110,000 in back pay and compensatory damages, the three-year consent decree resolving the case (EEOC v. Measurement, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00623 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina) includes injunctive relief enjoining Measurement Incorporated from engaging in further religious discrimination and requiring anti-discrimination training; the posting of a notice about the EEOC and its lawsuit against the company; and regular reporting by the company on its handling of religious accommodation requests .
“Some employers still need to be educated that they are required by law to explore reasonable accommodations to solve situations like this,” said Lynette A. Barnes, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Charlotte District, which includes the EEOC’s Raleigh Area Office, where the charge was filed. “No person should be forced to choose between her religion and her job when the company can provide an accommodation without suffering an undue hardship .”
The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws against employment discrimination. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-6-11.cfm

Walking on Eggshells: Avoiding Retaliation Claims When an Employee Who Files a Discrimination Complaint Doesn’t Leave

Workforce Management
An employee can win a retaliation claim even when he does not win the discrimination claim. The anti-retaliation law protects employees from negative consequences for complaining about discrimination, whether the complaint was justified or not. By Mary Price Birk

One of an employer’s hardest management dilemmas, because of the danger of retaliation claims, is when an employee who has made an EEOC claim, or filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination, still works for the employer. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against employees who file complaints of such discrimination.
Retaliation is any action by an employer that would have deterred a reasonable employee from making a claim of discrimination, had the employee known this action would be taken against him if he complained. An employee can win a retaliation claim even when he does not win the discrimination claim. The anti-retaliation law protects employees from negative consequences for complaining about discrimination, whether the complaint was justified or not. In addition to Title VII, there are many other federal and state laws that also prohibit retaliation.

Full Story: http://www.workforce.com/archive/feature/legal/walking-eggshells-avoiding-retaliation-claims-an/index.php

Chicago waits for next step in firefighter case

Associated Press
By DEANNA BELLANDI (AP)

CHICAGO — The city of Chicago says it's ready to hire firefighters in a long-running discrimination case if it's ordered to do so now that the U.S. Supreme Court has found a group of black applicants didn't wait too long to sue.
The Supreme Court's decision Monday sent the case back to a lower court. Mara Georges, the city of Chicago's corporation counsel, said the city plans to hire the would-be firefighters if the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago determines it should. City officials say about 111 recruits could be employed.

Full Story: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hdV4k6q8whNn7fJ_JhZb5tdIy4ZwD9FTT9800

See also: New York Times: "Black Firefighters’ Claim Was Timely, Justices Say", May 24, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/us/25scotus.html

Race-based comment found not to be "hostile"

Lexology
Ogletree Deakins
USA April 2 2010

Court Rejects Harassment Claim, Noting Worker's Inaction
A federal appellate court recently held that an employee who claimed he was subjected to 14 months of racially-motivated comments cannot succeed on his Title VII racial harassment claim. According to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the case must be dismissed because the alleged behavior was not "severe and pervasive" and the employee failed to adequately pursue his complaint with his supervisors. Ford v. Minteq Shapes and Services, Inc., No. 09-2140, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (November 24, 2009).
Factual Background
Dennis Ford was employed by Min-teq Shapes and Services, Inc. (MSS) at its Portage, Indiana facility. Ford, who had worked at MSS as a forklift operator for 13 years, was the only African-American employee on site.
Ford claimed that over a 14-month period a co-worker, Joseph Wampler, often referred to him as "black African-American" or "black man." The behavior stopped when his supervisor, Steve Smith, and co-worker Miguel Altieri overheard Wampler's comments and reprimanded him.
Ford claimed that he reported Wampler's comments and several other concerns to Laura Beemsterboer, the Manager of Human Resources. Specifically, Ford alleged: that his supervisor, Ronald Humphreys, once told him that he didn't have to worry about his job because MSS "wanted to appear integrated"; that another supervisor, Lee Nuzzo, once called him a "gorilla"; and that MSS barred Ford but not oth-ers from bringing their grandchildren to the company's Christmas parties.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=73a5f40f-a821-4d94-9086-2157eee1d404&utm_source=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Lexology%20subscriber%20daily%20feed&utm_content=Lexology%20Daily%20Newsfeed%202010-04-13&utm_term=