Judge Norma L. Shapiro (U.S. Dist. Court. ED Pa) awarded Melissa Brown $160,000, more than double the jury award against her employer, Nutrition Management, for its bad faith violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Under the FMLA, any damages award is subject to mandatory liquidated damages equal to the amount of the award itself, unless the employer can show that it acted in good faith.

Noting that the FMLA does not define “good faith” and that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to provide a definition, Judge Shapiro stated that “[r]easonable good faith requires a defendant to take affirmative steps to ascertain the requirements of the law.”  Here, Judge Shapiro held, Nutrition Management’s conflicting testimony regarding its reasons for terminating Ms. Brown lacked credibility.  Further, Judge Shapiro held, testimony that Nutrition Management “reasonably believed” there was no FMLA violation without any evidence of any affirmative steps taken to understand its legal obligations was insufficient to meet its burden of proving good faith.  Thus the court held that it “would be a clear error of law for the court not to amend the judgment to include liquidated damages.”

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination practice, click here.  To view the decision discussed above, Brown v. Nutrition Management Services Co., No. 06-2034 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 21, 2009), available here.

Municipal attorney David Eng alleged that his employer, the District Attorney’s office for Pasadena California, retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights, in response to statements made by his attorney to the media.  Eng’s attorney made public statements claiming that the DA’s office retaliated against Eng because he complained that a city official leaked information to the IRS causing the city’s financing agreements to be withdrawn at great expense to the city.  Thereafter, Eng was temporarily suspended without pay, and later was denied numerous benefits and passed over for promotion.

The Defendants claimed they were entitled to qualified immunity and that any First Amendment rights that applied to Eng did not extend to comments made by his attorney.  The District Court disagreed and denied summary judgment, and the Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal.

The Ninth Circuit first held that Eng’s First Amendment rights extend to his counsel, since when a lawyer speaks for his client the lawyer’s right to speak is grounded in the rights of the client, and, therefore, “his words were Eng’s words as far as the First Amendment is concerned.”    Next, the court concluded that speech about the functioning of government is inherently a significant public concern and that, since Eng’s rights were clearly established at the time of the adverse actions against him, his employer was on notice that statements on issues of public concern for which he had no duty to make are protected by the First Amendment.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s rejection of qualified immunity and denial of summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination practice, click here.  To read Eng v. Cooley, No. 07-56055 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2009), click here.

In an article titled, “NTSB Found Liable for $466M in Equal Pay Lawsuit,” the North Country Gazette reports about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s victory on behalf of its client, Ms. Murtagh Cooke in a case under the Equal Pay Act.   The article describes how the National Transportation Safety Board discriminated against the former female director by paying her less than similarly-situated males.  After reviewing the facts of Ms. Cooke’s case of gender based discrimination in violation of the Equal Pay Act, the Court of Federal Claims not only awarded Ms. Murtagh Cooke her lost back pay and retirement benefits, but also extended her damages back three years.  To read the full opinion in Cooke v. United States, click here.

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expands the time frame in which employees can sue for discriminatory compensation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).  Under the new law, employees can file a complaint for pay discrimination within 180 days of any discriminatory compensation decision, rather than within 180 days of the first occurrence of pay discrimination.  In other words, the new law permits employees to sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of their most recent paycheck. 

The Act is in response to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., where the Court in a 5-4 decision, concluded that Ledbetter could no longer make a claim of gender-based pay discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission because she failed to do so within 180 days of the initial discriminatory compensation decision.  The problem with requiring a strict timetable for reporting pay discrimination is that it often takes employees years to detect wage disparities.   Ms. Ledbetter for example, did not learn that she was being paid less than similarly-situated males until she was approaching retirement, several years after the pay discrimination allegedly began.  The new law however, restores the employees’ ability to challenge unequal pay by relaxing the statute of limitations for initiating a claim of unequal pay.  The Act applies to all discrimination claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, and is effective for any claims made on or after May 28, 2007. 

The Employment Law Group® law firm routinely represents employees subjected to discriminatory practices because of their gender, race, national origin, age or disability.  Recently, the firm won a $466,000 plus verdict for a former female director who alleged that her employer discriminated against her by paying her less than similarly-situated male directors.  For more information on the firm’s Discrimination Practice, click here.