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 January 20, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit issued an en banc decision ruling that, “a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out in the offensive conduct.”  The unanimous ruling came in a rehearing and affirmation of an earlier 3-judge panel which overturned the district court’s grant of the employer’s motion for summary judgment in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc..

Reeves, the only female employee on the sales floor of a shipping company was confronted with such extreme vulgarities that the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion contains a disclaimer that “we do not explicate this vulgar language lightly, but only because its full consideration is essential to measure whether these words and this conduct could be read has having created ‘an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile and abusive.’”  In addition to offensive language, Reeves also observed her co-workers discussing the anatomy of another female employee and witnessed a co-worker viewing pornography on his computer.  Reeves attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issues with her co-workers, middle, and senior management and at one point was told, “better wear your earplugs tomorrow.”  Reeves resigned and filed a Title VII complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

Examining the record, the Eleventh Circuit found “a substantial corpus of gender-derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group in the workplace.”  The court applied a disparate treatment analysis and isolated the issue to whether “the conduct alleged. . . created a hostile work environment that ‘exposed [Revees] to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex [were] not exposed.’”  The court distinguished between general and indiscriminate vulgarities and references to sex from repetitive “comments addressed to the plaintiff’s ‘target area’,” which the court said may constitute actionable harassment. The court next addressed the employer’s inaction, finding their complacency to be the same as an affirmative authorization of the conduct and thus an intent to discriminate.  The court also rejected the employer’s argument that it lacked intent since the same behavior took place before Reeves was hired. 

In an important win for victims of harassment and discrimination, the Eleventh Circuit declared that insults aimed “at a protected group may give rise to the inference of an intent to discriminate on the basis of sex, even when those insults are not directed at the individual employee.”  Accordingly, a “jury could reasonably find. . . the alleged offensive conduct in the office contributed to conditions that were humiliating and degrading to women on account of their gender,” creating a hostile environment.  Also of note, the court observed that insulting a man by comparing him to a woman could be taken as humiliating to women as a group as well.

This decision affirms the right of employees not to suffer conditions in the work place that are disparately humiliating, abusive, or degrading.  The Employment Law Group® has developed a practice committed to protecting the rights of employees.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Sexual Harassment Practice, click here.

In November 2008, the Department of Labor issued revised regulations for the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which became effective on January 16, 2009.  These new regulations however, differ from comparable regulations that California’s Fair Employment and Housing Commission had issued interpreting the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), California’s version of the federal FMLA.   Thus, the Commission has issued an updated comparison chart outlining the key differences between the revised FMLA regulations and the Commission’s CFRA regulations.  Key differences include: 

1. Pregnancy as a “Serious Health Condition” – Pregnancy is considered a serious health condition under the FMLA however, pregnancy is not covered under the CFRA.  Instead, in California a pregnant employee is entitled to a pregnancy disability leave of up to 4 months.
2. Domestic Partners – Domestic partners are not considered “spouses” under the FMLA.  Under the CFRA, however, registered domestic partners like spouses are entitled to family leave.
3. Military Leave – FMLA now includes 26 weeks of leave to care for injured family members that are in the military, and 12 weeks of leave for “qualified exigencies.”  California however, does not offer this privilege under the CFRA. 

To view the full comparison chart, click here.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Employment Discrimination Law practice, go to http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/PracticeAreas/Discrimination-Law.asp

The Washington Supreme Court held that there is a clear mandate of public policy protecting victims of domestic violence and their families, and therefore employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for taking a reasonable absence from work to relocate their family due to domestic violence, obtain counseling, or participate in proceedings to hold an abuser accountable.   The court identified 30 years of legislative findings and acts, executive orders, and case law as evidence of clear public policy of protecting domestic violence victims and their families. 

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law practice, click here.  The case name is Danny v. Laidlaw Transit Servs. Inc., Wash., No. 78421-3, 10/3/08 (31 EDR 506).