The California Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Google that the discriminatory “stray remarks” of coworkers who don’t make employment decisions can influence decision-makers and are sufficient to avoid summary judgment.  Plaintiff Brian Reid filed an age discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and California‘s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) alleging Google fired him because he was perceived as “too old to matter” and “obsolete.”  He further alleged that coworkers called him names such as “old man” and “old fuddy-duddy.”  The court held that such derogatory comments are sufficient to allow Reid’s lawsuit to proceed to trial.

The attorneys at The Employment Law Group® have experience litigating Age Discrimination claims in California and other states.  For more information on the firm’s Age Discrimination Practice, click here.

A jury in Maine found that Express Jet Airlines violated Maine’s Human Rights Act, which bars employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and awarded a former employee, Edward Russell, $1 million in damages. According to his complaint, Russell was qualified for a vacant general manager position and had even temporarily held the position several times, but the airline instead hired a manager one executive described as a “real man.”

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims. For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On July 8, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in the case of Gill v. OPM that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection principles embodied in Fifth Amendment.  Judge Joseph Tauro stated, “. . . the Constitution will not tolerate government reliance ‘on a classification whose relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.’”  DOMA prohibits same-sex married couples from fully utilizing their federal benefits including health insurance, dental and vision insurance, flexible spending accounts, social security benefits, retirement benefits, and the “married” filing status under the IRS.  Click here for the full opinion.

In a companion case, Massachusetts v. DHHS, the same court held DOMA unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment, stating that marriage was and is an institution traditionally left to the states to define, not the federal government.  Click here for the companion case’s full opinion.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII forbids an employer from “inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member, or fiancé, closely associated with the employee” who engages in protected conduct, and “if so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?”

In Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 09-291, Thompson’s fiancé, now wife, filed an EEOC complaint alleging that her supervisors discriminated against her based on her gender.  Approximately three weeks after learning of the complaint, North American Stainless fired Thompson.  Thompson sued alleging that his employer violated the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII.  The district court granted summary judgment which the Sixth Circuit affirmed en banc, holding that: 1) Thompson was not a member of a protected class; and 2) Title VII does not create a cause of action for third-parties that suffer retaliation without personally engaging in protected activity.  The case docket is available here.

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or job applicant based upon that individual’s sex, race, color, national origin, or religion.  Title VII also prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee or applicant who speaks out against unlawful discrimination.  To learn more about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On July 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Georgia issued a judgment declaring that employees are protected from discrimination for not conforming to gender stereotypes.  Judge Richard Story granted summary judgment in the case of Glenn v. Brumby, stating that transgendered individuals are protected from employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment.  Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.  The plaintiff, Glenn, was an employee of the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel (OLC) when she informed her boss that she would begin dressing as a woman instead of a man.  Upon learning of her decision, the OLC fired her.

Judge Story stated, “[w]hile transsexuals are not members of a protected class based on sex, those who do not conform to gender stereotypes are members of a protected class based on sex.”  Transsexuals are individuals who identify with the opposite gender, while transgendered individuals are those who do not conform to gender norms or stereotypes.  The Court further elaborated that everyone, including transsexuals, is protected from employment discrimination for not acting or appearing “manly enough” or “feminine enough,” regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identification.  Click here for the full opinion.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating LGBT discrimination claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued an official interpretation expanding the definition of “son or daughter” to include children in non-traditional families under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The FMLA provides that an employee may take up to twelve weeks of leave to care for a newborn, adopted son or daughter, or son or daughter with a serious health condition.  The DOL’s newly issued interpretation clarifies that “son or daughter” means virtually any child where the employee assumes the obligations of a parent without any formal declaration.  According to the Department of Labor, this interpretation “sends a clear message to workers and employers alike:  All families, including LGBT families, are protected by the FMLA.” Click here for the official DOL interpretation.

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating FMLA based claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On June 18, 2010, the Fourth Circuit reversed summary judgment in a sexual harassment action brought by the EEOC against Fairbrook Medical Clinic, finding that the lower court erred in holding that the EEOC failed to introduce sufficient evidence to prove a hostile work place.  According to the Fourth Circuit, “[w]hat happened here . . . was not merely general crudity but a series of graphic remarks of a highly personal nature directed at a female employee by the sole owner of an establishment.” 

The case is E.E.O.C. v. Fairbrook Med. Clinic, P.A., and a copy of the opinion is available here.

The employment lawyers at The Employment Law Group® law firm have extensive experience representing employees in Title VII gender discrimination and sexual harassment claims.  To learn more about the firm’s sexual harassment practice, click here.

Middle River Aircraft Systems, a Baltimore subsidiary of General Electric, has agreed to pay $130,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  According to the EEOC, MRA Systems gave 61-year-old Louis Behrendt low performance ratings and refused to promote him because of his age. 

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects employees over the age of 40 from age based discrimination.  The ADEA also prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who opposes age-based discriminatory practices or participates in an ensuing investigation or action. 

The employment lawyers at The Employment Law Group® law firm have extensive experience litigating age discrimination and retaliation claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and state laws.  To learn more about the firm’s Age Discrimination Practice, click here.

On May 24, 2010, the Supreme Court held that each time an employer applies a test which creates a disparate impact on workers, the statute of limitations under Title VII is reset.  In Lewis v. City of Chicago, a group of African-American firefighters alleged that the City’s use of a written test for hiring created a disparate impact.  Finding that the plaintiffs failed to file an EEOC charge within 300 days of the City’s adoption of the test, the Seventh Circuit granted summary judgment for the City.  The Supreme Court overruled, holding when a plaintiff “does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice,” he “may assert a disparate-impact claim . . . challenging the employer’s later application of that practice.”

The employment lawyers of The Employment Law Group® law firm have substantial experience litigating Title VII based claims including sex, race, and religion based claims.  For more information about the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

On June 1, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a community college’s failure to renew an employment contract because of the employee’s age constituted unlawful age discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.  The New Jersey law contains a provision which allows an employer to refuse to hire someone over age 70.  However, according to the court, this exception applies only to new hires and not contract renewals.  The case is Nini v. Mercer County Community College.

For more information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Age Discrimination Practice, click here.