By Kate Acheson
In City of Tulsa, 130 LA 1163 (Williams, 2012), the Tulsa Police Department terminated an officer for bringing a domestic violence victim to his home. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union’s argument, that the termination was too harsh, based on other Department discipline measures and the officer’s good record.
By Jim Cline
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Listed below, are some articles we think are worth a look:
This article on 9th Circuit decision Dahlia v. Rodriquez criticizes a narrow Supreme Court interpretation of “official duties” exception to First Amendment protection set forth in Garcetti v. Ceballos
This article discusses recently released EEOC Guidelines that suggests that Title VII Discrimination rules barring discrimination, can be extended to harassment or discrimination against victims of domestic violence, or stalking.
New Jersey May Become Fourth State to Limit Access to Employee Social Media Accounts
This short article discusses proposed New Jersey Senate bill and identifies that Maryland, Illinois and California have already adopted laws limiting employer’s ability to access social media accounts.
By Kate Acheson
The Employment Relations Board of the State of Oregon (“ERB”) found in UP-023-12 that the City of Portland violated state law by refusing to implement Arbitrator Wilkenson’s award reinstating Officer Ronald Frashour. The ERB ordered the City to comply with the arbitrator’s award and to post notices of its violation due to its “calculated” avoidance. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
In Central State University, 130 LA 1351 (Bell, 2012), Arbitrator Langdon Bell was precluded from awarding monetary damages against Central State University for a violation of their collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with their security officers because the union did file a written request for a specific remedy. Thus, although a violation with associated monetary damages was properly alleged, the Arbitrator could only direct the University to adhere to the CBA staffing guidelines in the future. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
I
n Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, the Sixth Circuit found that an employer’s order for an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) to attend counseling for suspected depression may have been an impermissible “medical examination” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The case was remanded to determine whether an ADA exception allowing “job related” medical examinations that are consistent with a “business necessity” applies. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
A Missouri Police Officer who was passed over for a promotion and other positive job benefits, claimed the City was retaliating against him for reporting City official corruption in an internal investigation report. In Buehrle v. City of O’Fallon, Mo., the Eighth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the Officer’s speech, which was made in the course of his official duties, and upheld a summary judgment dismissing his claims.
By Kate Acheson
After being subjected to repeated urine-sample drug tests, a New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Officer, Ada Perez, filed complaint. The MTA moved to dismiss. In Perez v. Metro. Transp. Auth., the District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Officer Perez’s complaint, reasoning that sufficient information existed for a jury to find in Officer Perez’s favor on her unreasonable search and seizure claim.
By Cynthia McNabb
As suspected when the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2009, in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, reverse discrimination cases among police and firefighters are in the headlines, with several verdicts reached favoring the plaintiffs who have brought reverse discrimination cases against their employers.
By Cynthia McNabb
Are you required to drug test in order to keep your job? In addition to drug testing, are you required to disclose what prescription medication you are taking and for what purpose? If you answered yes to any of these questions, a recent EEOC settlement reached, may be of interest to you.
By Kate Acheson
Public employees are protected in the exercise of their First Amendment rights. This allows them to bring lawsuits when an employer’s retaliatiatory action is significant enough to constitute an “adverse employment action.” Not every employer action rises to that level.
