Democracy, Race discrimination

Martin Luther King; His entire “I Have a Dream” speech

2 Comments

Today is the 47th Anniver­sary of Dr. Mar­tin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” giv­en on the steps of the Lin­coln Memo­r­i­al. We are now two gen­er­a­tions removed from that speech. Worse, we live in the age of MTV, Twit­ter, and 30-sec­ond sound­bites on the evening news. So all too often, we see only bite-sized snip­pets from Dr. King’s speech, so I want­ed to post the entire speech on this video from YouTube:

Click here for a site that has the tran­script, audio, and video of the speech.

Hostile work environment, Prompt remedial action, Result for Employee, Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, Summary Judgment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Single act may create hostile work environment, according to Seventh Circuit in Berry v. Chicago Transit Authority

Leave a comment

A few days ago, I post­ed my arti­cle on PAR Elec­tri­cal Con­trac­tors, Inc. v. Bev­elle , in which the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court ruled that a sin­gle episode involv­ing mul­ti­ple uses of the N‑word could cre­ate a racial­ly hos­tile work envi­ron­ment.

The US Court of Appeals for the Sev­enth Cir­cuit just released an opin­ion in Berry v. Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty, 618 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2010), which rais­es the sim­i­lar issue: Can a sin­gle instance of sex­u­al harass­ment cre­ate a hos­tile work envi­ron­ment? And the answer was yes, depend­ing on the circumstances.

Ms. Berry is Sexually Harassed in a Single Incident

Cyn­thia Berry was an employ­ee at the Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty. She was on her break and sat at a pic­nic style table with three male co-work­ers. A fourth male co-work­er, Philip Carmichael, had fol­lowed her to the pic­nic area and ordered Ms. Berry to get up from the table. Offend­ed by Mr. Carmichael’s “com­mand­ing tone”, Ms. Berry remained seat­ed. Mr. Carmichael then sat down and “strad­dled the bench” so he was fac­ing one of the male co-work­ers at the pic­nic table, and so that Mr. Carmichael’s back was close to Ms. Berry. The oth­er three male co-work­ers got up from where they were seat­ed at the pic­nic table and moved to the oth­er end of the table. Then:

Berry says Carmichael remained where he was seat­ed and began rub­bing his back against her shoul­der. She jumped up, told him not to rub him­self against her, and sat down next to Hardy at the oth­er end of the table. At this point,
Berry says, Mar­shall began telling her to get up from the table again. Not want­i­ng Mar­shall to think he could order her around, she remained seat­ed, but began rub­bing her tem­ples to com­pose her­self. Accord­ing to Berry, she next felt Carmichael grab­bing her breasts and lift­ing her up from the bench. Hold­ing her in the air, he rubbed her but­tocks against the front of his body—from his chest to his penis—three times before bring­ing her to the ground with force. Berry land­ed off-bal­ance, with only one leg on the ground, and says Carmichael then pushed her into a fence. Upset and want­i­ng to avoid any men, she lay down in a bus for the rest of her shift.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Sin­gle act may cre­ate hos­tile work envi­ron­ment, accord­ing to Sev­enth Cir­cuit in Berry v. Chica­go Tran­sit Author­i­ty →
Attorney's Fees, Back and Front Pay Issues, Constructive discharge, Emotional Distress Damages, Employment policies, Hostile work environment, Prompt remedial action, Race discrimination, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, WV Human Rights Act, WV Human Rights Commission, WV Supreme Court

The disastrous consequences of the N‑word in the workplace. Just ask Dr. Laura!

1 Comment

Okay, this arti­cle has noth­ing to do with Dr. Lau­ra Sch­lessinger and her “rant” in which she used the N‑word repeat­ed­ly on her radio pro­gram when respond­ing to an African-Amer­i­can caller. But the ensu­ing con­tro­ver­sy (see arti­cles for and against Dr. Lau­ra), and her deci­sion to end her long-run­ning radio pro­gram, high­light the extra­or­di­nary sig­nif­i­cance of the N‑word term in Amer­i­can society.

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly dealt with the N‑word in a case that high­lights the great risks for employ­ers when that word enters the workplace.

In PAR Elec­tri­cal Con­trac­tors, Inc. v. Bev­elle , 225 W. Va. 624, 695 S.E.2d 854, 2010 WL 2244096 (June 3, 2010) (per curi­am), the West Vir­ginia Supreme Court dealt with a claim of a racial­ly based hos­tile work envi­ron­ment under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act, and con­clud­ed that the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Com­mis­sion was jus­ti­fied in find­ing for the employ­ee. The deci­sion was unan­i­mous. Click here for the WV Human Rights Com­mis­sion’s deci­sion which was affirmed by the WV Supreme Court.

A Single Day, With the N‑Word Again and Again

PAR Elec­tri­cal was build­ing “giant tow­ers” for a high volt­age elec­tri­cal trans­mis­sion line. Richard Wayne Bev­elle was hired by PAR Elec­tri­cal on March 22, 2005, and, after work­ing as a “ground­man” assem­bling the tow­er bases, was assigned to load heli­copters with parts to con­struct the tow­ers (this heli­copter job was described as a “gravy job” by the Human Rights Com­mis­sion). Mr. Bev­elle is African-American.

Con­tin­ue read­ing The dis­as­trous con­se­quences of the N‑word in the work­place. Just ask Dr. Lau­ra! →
Age Discrimination, Back and Front Pay Issues, Emotional Distress Damages, Jury verdicts, Punitive damages, Result for Employee, WV Human Rights Act

Charleston, WV Jury Awards $1.7m in Age Discrimination Case, 10–1‑09

Leave a comment

On Octo­ber 1, 2009, a jury in Charleston, Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia returned a ver­dict in an age dis­crim­i­na­tion case, award­ing James Nagy a total of $1,750,450.

The Lawsuit

James Nagy filed suit in Charleston in March 2008 against West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny, alleg­ing that he was fired in March 2007 because of his age at 53, after 23 years of employment.

James Nagy was rep­re­sent­ed by Maria W. Hugh­es and Stephen Weber at Kay Cas­to & Chaney PLLC. West Vir­ginia Amer­i­can Water Com­pa­ny was rep­re­sent­ed by Mychal Schulz at Dins­more & Shohl LLC.

The case is pend­ing in Cir­cuit Court in Kanawha Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, before Judge Jen­nifer Bai­ley-Walk­er.

The Verdict

That $1,750,450 ver­dict con­sist­ed of:

Award of Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

Under the West Vir­ginia Human Rights Act (which pro­hibits age and oth­er forms of dis­crim­i­na­tion in the work­place), Nagy’s coun­sel filed a motion addi­tion­al­ly request­ing attor­neys’ fees and expenses.

Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er award­ed the plain­tiff total attorney’s fees of $177,772.50, and $8,855.33 in expenses.

Appeal

The Defen­dant is in the process of appeal­ing.  The issue of attor­neys’ fees was resolved by Judge Bai­ley-Walk­er on June 8, 2010, so the appeal process is in its ear­ly stages as of the date of this arti­cle being updat­ed (July 31, 2010). As things devel­op in the appeal, I will update this article.

July 31, 2010

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Sexual orientation

FMLA now applies to leave for care of children by same-sex couples

Leave a comment

The Unit­ed States Depart­ment of Labor recent­ly issued an Administrator’s Inter­pre­ta­tion 2010–3 which applies leave rights under the Fam­i­ly and Med­ical Leave Act to care of chil­dren by same-sex cou­ples. The US Depart­ment of Labor issued a press release to help explain the Administrator’s Inter­pre­ta­tion. In oth­er words, employ­ees in same-sex rela­tion­ships who qual­i­fy for leave under the FMLA will be enti­tled to pro­tect­ed leave for the qual­i­fy­ing care of their children.

As the DOL’s press release suc­cinct­ly says, the “FMLA allows work­ers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave dur­ing any 12-month peri­od to care for loved ones or them­selves”. (29 U.S.C. 2612; 29 C.F.R. 825.200).

What is a “son or daughter”?

The key issue was when the child fell into the def­i­n­i­tion of “son or daugh­ter” for the employ­ee seek­ing leave. When does the law rec­og­nize the child as the “son or daugh­ter” of the employee?

Administrator’s Inter­pre­ta­tion 2010–3 sets out the statu­to­ry lan­guage, and same-sex cou­ples now have the nec­es­sary rela­tion­ship to the child through the sta­tus of being “in loco par­en­tis”, which more or less means some­one who “stands in the place” of the par­ent. Here is the dis­cus­sion in the Administrator’s Interpretation:

The FMLA enti­tles an eli­gi­ble employ­ee to take up to 12 work­weeks of job-pro­tect­ed leave, in rel­e­vant part, “[b]ecause of the birth of a son or daugh­ter of the employ­ee and in order to care for such son or daugh­ter,” “[b]ecause of the place­ment of a son or daugh­ter with the employ­ee for adop­tion or fos­ter care,” and to care for a son or daugh­ter with a seri­ous health con­di­tion. See 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(A) — ©; 29 C.F.R. § 825.200. The FMLA defines a “son or daugh­ter” as a “bio­log­i­cal, adopt­ed, or fos­ter child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of a per­son stand­ing in loco par­en­tis, who is— (A) under 18 years of age; or (B) 18 years of age or old­er and inca­pable of self-care because of a men­tal or phys­i­cal dis­abil­i­ty.” 29 U.S.C. § 2611(12). See also 29 C.F.R. §§ 825.122©, 825.800.

(empha­sis added).

Con­tin­ue read­ing FMLA now applies to leave for care of chil­dren by same-sex cou­ples →
Attorney's Fees, Drew Capuder, Retaliation claims

Drew Capuder will be speaking on retaliation law on Oct 29–30, 2010 at Oglebay Park in Wheeling

1 Comment

I will be speak­ing (and pre­sent­ing on arti­cle) on recent devel­op­ments in retal­i­a­tion under fed­er­al and West Vir­ginia employ­ment law on either Octo­ber 29 or 30, 2010 at the annu­al con­fer­ence of the West Vir­ginia Employ­ment Lawyers Asso­ci­a­tion. The con­fer­ence will be at Ogle­bay Resort and Con­fer­ence Cen­ter in Wheel­ing, West Vir­ginia. The final sched­ule is not out yet, so I don’t know whether my speech with be on Octo­ber 29 or 30.

Retal­i­a­tion law in recent years has been one of those devel­op­ing areas, and much more often than not the move­ment in the case law has been in the direc­tion of expand­ing pro­tec­tions for employ­ees against retal­i­a­tion. The US Supreme Court espe­cial­ly has focused on retal­i­a­tion law, and has “plugged gaps” in the law for fed­er­al employ­ees to include pro­tec­tion for retal­i­a­tion claims, has low­ered the thresh­old for what is action­able retal­i­a­tion, and has broad­ened the def­i­n­i­tion of “oppo­si­tion” which enti­tles employ­ees to protection.

One of the dan­gers for employ­ers from retal­i­a­tion claims is that, after an employ­ee com­plains about alleged dis­crim­i­na­tion, the employ­er may be guilty of retal­i­a­tion even if a jury decides there was no dis­crim­i­na­tion to sup­port the employee’s orig­i­nal com­plaint. An employ­ee may suc­ceed in a retal­i­a­tion claim as long as his com­plaint was made in good faith, even if the employ­ee was wrong about the com­plaint of discrimination.

In the pri­or 2 years at the annu­al con­fer­ence for WVELA, I spoke and wrote arti­cles on awards of attor­neys’ fees under employ­ment dis­crim­i­na­tion laws, and on age dis­crim­i­na­tion.

Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability discrimination, Drew Capuder, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Hostile work environment, Sexual harassment

Drew Capuder will be speaking on disability and sexual harassment issues in Morgantown Oct. 20, 2010

Leave a comment

I will be speak­ing (and pre­sent­ing arti­cles)  at a sem­i­nar spon­sored by Ster­ling Edu­ca­tion Ser­vices on Octo­ber 20, 2010 in Mor­gan­town, West Vir­ginia, enti­tled “Fun­da­men­tals of Employ­ment Law”.

I will be speak­ing (and pre­sent­ing arti­cles) on “Sex­u­al, Racial, and Oth­er Harass­ment in the Work­place” and “ADA and FMLA Update”.

Here is the full agen­da, and here is the fac­ul­ty infor­ma­tion. The sem­i­nar will pro­vide around 6–8 hours of con­tin­u­ing edu­ca­tion cred­it for lawyers (I don’t know the exact num­ber, but the sem­i­nar is a full day).

You can reg­is­ter for the the sem­i­nar online. For fur­ther infor­ma­tion, you can con­tact Ster­ling, and their num­ber is 715–855-0498.

Harless wrongful discharge, Hostile work environment, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, Medical Industry Litigation, Pleading requirements, Result for Employee, Retaliation claims, Sex Discrimination, Sexual harassment, WV Human Rights Act, WV Supreme Court

Sorry boss, I didn’t know you were having sex in the office!!

1 Comment

The West Vir­ginia Supreme Court recent­ly issued an opin­ion deal­ing with one of those stereo­typ­i­cal­ly awk­ward sit­u­a­tions, where an employ­ee alleged­ly stum­bles into a room where the boss is hav­ing sex with a co-work­er. The deci­sion was  Roth v. DeFe­lice­Care, Inc., 226 W. Va. 214, 700 S.E.2d 183 (June 8, 2010) (per curi­am). It was a 3–2 deci­sion, in which the 3‑vote major­i­ty con­sist­ed of Jus­tices Robin Davis, Mar­garet Work­man, and  Thomas McHugh. Jus­tices Menis Ketchum and Brent Ben­jamin dis­sent­ed, and Jus­tice Ketchum wrote a dis­sent­ing opinion.

The Facts–Sex at Work

These are the facts accord­ing to the com­plaint in the law­suit: Tri­cia Roth was a res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­pist work­ing at DeFe­lice­Care, Inc. in Ohio Coun­ty, West Vir­ginia, and she was about to go on vaca­tion. She was direct­ed by Leslie DeFe­lice (the male boss/owner) to come to work some­time dur­ing the week­end pre­ced­ing her vaca­tion in June 2006. She was not told a spe­cif­ic time to come to work dur­ing that week­end. When she came to work as ordered, she “observed Defen­dant [Leslie] DeFe­lice and/or Michelle Kel­ly par­tial­ly clothed and in a com­pro­mis­ing posi­tion”. Mr. DeFe­lice instruct­ed Ms. Roth to go into a con­fer­ence room and wait–meanwhile Mr. DeFe­lice and the oth­er employ­ee got all their clothes back on. Mr. DeFe­lice then talked to Ms. Roth and told her to for­get about what she had just seen, and threat­ened Ms. Ross with the loss of her res­pi­ra­to­ry ther­a­py license and the loss of her employment.

Ms. Roth then went on vaca­tion. When she got back from vaca­tion and returned to work, she had a meet­ing with Mr. DeFe­lice that did­n’t go well. Ms. Roth told Mr. DeFe­lice that she had­n’t told any­one about his sex­u­al encounter at work. Mr. DeFe­lice pro­ceed­ed to fire Ms. Roth because “he did not like how she was dressed” and “he did not like the style[/]color of her hair”.

Ms. Roth Files Suit–Case Dismissed

Ms. Roth then filed suit on legal the­o­ries cen­ter­ing around sex dis­crim­i­na­tion and sex­u­al harass­ment, and–bada bing!–the case prompt­ly got dismissed.

Ms. Roth’s com­plaint (the doc­u­ment which starts the law­suit and describes the plain­tiff’s alle­ga­tions) focused on the sex­u­al inci­dent I have described above, but also made alle­ga­tions about oth­er sex­u­al harassment–I will dis­cuss those details below.

Con­tin­ue read­ing Sor­ry boss, I didn’t know you were hav­ing sex in the office!! →
Age Discrimination, Federal Cases (but not US Supreme Court), Fourth Circuit, Pension issues, Summary Judgment

Fourth Circuit rules that pension contribution rules may be age biased

Leave a comment

The Fourth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals, in an unpub­lished opin­ion, addressed whether an employ­er’s pen­sion con­tri­bu­tion rules may con­sti­tute age dis­crim­i­na­tion under the Age Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Employ­ment Act of 1967, in Equal Employ­ment Oppor­tu­ni­ty Com­mis­sion v. Bal­ti­more Coun­ty, 385 Fed. Appx. 322 (4th Cir. 2010). The unan­i­mous opin­ion was writ­ten by Judge Den­nis Shed, and was joined by Judge Roger Gre­go­ry and Arther L. Alar­con (Senior Judge on Ninth Cir­cuit, sit­ting by designation).

Federal Cases (but not US Supreme Court), Fourth Circuit, Hostile work environment, Medical Industry Litigation, Result for Employer, Sexual harassment, Summary Judgment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Can you be sexually harassed behind your back?

Leave a comment

It might be obvi­ous, but it seems a bit dif­fi­cult to win on a claim for sex­u­al harass­ment where all of the harass­ment occurs behind your back (and by “behind your back”, I mean sit­u­a­tions where the harass­ing behav­ior occurs when the com­plain­ing employ­ee is not phys­i­cal­ly present to expe­ri­ence or hear what is happening).

The Fourth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals addressed this issue in Pueschel v. Peters, 577 F.3d 558 (4th Cir. 2009), in a unan­i­mous deci­sion writ­ten by Judge Roger Gre­go­ry in which Judges M. Blane Michael and Robert Bruce King joined.

The Fourth Cir­cuit did­n’t have much dif­fi­cul­ty reach­ing the con­clu­sion that, for any claim alleg­ing a hos­tile work envi­ron­ment (includ­ing sex­u­al harass­ment), you can’t suc­ceed if all of the mis­con­duct about which you com­plain occurred at work when you were not at work.

Twenty-Eight Years of Litigation!!!

This case grows out of an incred­i­bly long his­to­ry of lit­i­ga­tion (includ­ing sev­er­al dif­fer­ent law­suits and appeals (some of which were suc­cess­ful)) filed by Ms. Pueschel against her employ­er, the Fed­er­al Avi­a­tion Admin­is­tra­tion (“FAA”). The lit­i­ga­tion start­ed in 1981 and end­ed with this Fourth Cir­cuit deci­sion in 2009 (I am not kid­ding, and I am not sure this deci­sion marks the end of all of her litigation).

Con­tin­ue read­ing Can you be sex­u­al­ly harassed behind your back? →

Employment Law News and Analysis