By Kate Acheson
Plaintiff Tracy Joyner, a New York City Corrections Officer, filed suit against the City of New York for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII after her supervisor made repeated sexual advances towards her. In Joyner v. City of New York, the District Court dismissed all federal claims, finding that, although Ms. Joyner was sexually harassed, the City is not liable because Ms. Joyner waited over a year before reporting the harassment. [Read more…]
By Kate Acheson
The Colorado District Court refused to dismiss Hispanic, Deputy Sheriff Theresa Garcia’s retaliation, discrimination, and common law civil conspiracy claims in Garcia v. Arapahoe Cnty. Sheriff ’s Office, finding that these claims concerned genuine issues of material fact and could not be summarily dismissed. [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 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 Rick Gautschi
In Duncan v. Dakota County, No. 11-2467, August 3, 2012 (8th Cir. 2012), Toni Duncan worked as a correctional officer for Duncan County, NE, under the supervision of Chief Deputy Sheriff Rodney Herron. After leaving the job, she sued the County and Mr. Herron officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. She claimed that through the actions of Mr. Herron, the county had, in the forms of sexually harassing and constructively discharging her, denied her equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Ms. Duncan alleged that Mr. Herron had created a sexually charged work environment by fostering widespread sexual favoritism in the form of engaging in sexual relationships with subordinates and rewarding his favorites. Ms. Duncan produced no evidence that Mr. Herron had ever threatened or humiliated her. Further, she admitted that she was not promoted to an open position only because she chose not to apply for the position. Mr. Herron argued that the trial court should have determined that the doctrine of qualified immunity precluded Ms. Duncan from proceeding against him. [Read more…]
By Cynthia McNabb
As open-enrollment season for health insurance approaches, employees may see (if they have not already) options for reducing their health insurance costs by voluntarily enrolling in an employer wellness program. Alternatively, your union may have even entered into an agreement with your employer that requires you to participate in an employer wellness program, in order to maintain your health insurance. Billed as your opportunity to save money, participation in employer wellness programs are, in reality, merely fee-shifting endeavors that penalize employees with higher deductibles, higher co-pays, or fees for failure to participate. Unfortunately, trying to sort out what your rights are with respect to these wellness programs under the ADA, HIPAA and GINA ** (“Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) is a complicated undertaking.
By Rick Gautschi
In State of Ariz. v. City of Cottonwood, 115 FEP Cases 998, No. CV-11-2-1576-PHX-GMS, July 20, 2012, D. Az., sometime around 2000, as the result of agreements with the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) and other law enforcement agencies in Arizona, Fitness Intervention Technologies (FIT) conducted a study for the purpose of developing a physical fitness test for law enforcement officers. Subsequently, FIT presented the test to AZPOST, whose director rejected the use of the test out of a concern that if administered, it was likely to have a disparate impact on women. In December 2006, the City of Cottonwood (City) Police Department (CPD) adopted a general order that required incumbent officers and applicants for officer positions to pass the FIT physical fitness test. The policy gave incumbent officers three years to pass the test. The policy was silent as to officers who applied for promotions. Regardless, CPD’s Chief added passing the test to the department’s requirements for promotion. In early 2007, Monica Kuhlt (Ms. Kuhlt) applied for promotion to sergeant. She took the physical fitness test but did not pass all the elements of it. In May 2008, she applied for an open sergeant position, but again she failed the physical fitness test and suffered a back injury in the process of taking the test. She then filed a claim of discrimination with a state agency. In February 2009, the agency dismissed the claim but on April 1, 2009, reinstated it at her request. Subsequently, she supplied a doctor’s note that recommended substituting, for her, an aerobic activity other than the test’s required 1.5 mile run. CPD sent her to another doctor who opined that because of her inability to run, she was not fit to be a police officer. A lawsuit for sex discrimination and retaliation for having opposed sex discrimination followed.
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Houston v. Proler, No. 14-10-00971-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District, May 31, 2012 , during March 2006, a captain in a fire suppression unit in the Houston Fire Department (HFD) responded, along with firefighters that he supervised, to a building fire. While at the scene of the fire, the captain failed to follow orders and was found standing in a smoke-filled room. Medics at the scene determined that his blood pressure was low. Subsequently, at the direction of the HFD, he sought medical treatment. [Read more…]
