Rate this article:
Average rating:
Total votes: 0
Judge allows claim that motorcycle repair school knew teachers worked overtime to go forward.
A motorcycle repair technical school may be liable under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay employees it allegedly knew were working overtime.
An instructor at the school began working overtime to develop a new grading system. The project took many weeks, and most of the work, which would eventually save time, took place outside his normal working hours. The employee informed his supervisors he was working at home, because he could not complete his assigned tasks during the regular workweek. The employee claimed that although he put considerable time into the project, he did not record the overtime hours worked, because he was informed that his overtime work would not be compensated.
A US District Court found there was evidence that the school had both actual and constructive knowledge that instructors were working overtime and not being compensated. The school had an official policy that overtime work would not be compensated unless approved, but the evidence showed that it also had an unofficial policy of turning a blind eye to overtime work employees needed to complete their regular job duties. The court rejected the school's contention that it was not liable because the work was not recorded, stating the defendant's efforts to avoid knowledge would not shield it from liability, particularly because in this case, with a minimal degree of diligence, the school could have easily discovered that the employees were working overtime.
This case demonstrates the importance of management enforcing company policy. In this case, the school knew its employees were not getting permission before working overtime, and its failure to put an end to the practice led to liability for the extra hours worked.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Fletcher vs. Universal Technical Inst. Inc., 2006 US Dist. Lexis 39705 (M.D. Fla., June 15, 2006)]
Supreme Court upholds retaliation claim brought by a worker who was suspended without pay for 37 days but later reinstated and given back pay.
The US Supreme Court expanded the scope of retaliation claims for employees in a recent opinion in a case brought by a female railroad employee.
The worker had been transferred to a less-desirable assignment after she filed sexual harassment charges against her supervisor. After filing a retaliation charge, she was suspended for 37 days without pay, ostensibly for insubordination. An investigation revealed no misconduct, and she was reinstated and given back pay, leading to a second claim of retaliation.
In deciding this case, the court explained that an adverse employment action does not need to be permanent -- i.e., a firing, demotion or loss of pay -- to be material enough to constitute unlawful retaliation. Instead, the court considered whether the employment action would deter a reasonable person from filing a charge of discrimination and availing themselves of statutory legal remedies.
In this case, the court upheld the jury finding that the plaintiff's job transfer from forklift operator to track labor worker was materially adverse to a reasonable employee, because it was an objectively less-desirable position. Furthermore, although the employee was awarded back pay after her suspension was reversed, the court found that most employees would consider 37 days without pay a serious hardship. Because the threat of such a loss of pay would deter most individuals from filing a discrimination charge, it was sufficiently retaliatory.
Employers who need to discipline employees who have filed charges of discrimination must take greater care to make sure there is a legitimate reason for the discipline; even a nonmonetary sanction can now be grounds for a retaliation charge.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. vs. White, 122 S.Ct. 2405 (2006)].
An HIV-positive applicant to the Foreign Service is allowed to take his claim to court.
The District of Columbia Circuit allowed an HIV-positive applicant to the Foreign Service to go forward with his claim of disability discrimination, holding that there was not enough evidence to show that his requested accommodations were unreasonable.
The applicant was given a conditional offer of employment, provided he passed the written and oral Foreign Service examination. The conditional offer also required passing a medical examination. During the examination, the applicant voluntarily divulged that he was HIV-positive; he was subsequently denied employment based on a State Department policy barring anyone with HIV from working as a diplomat. The applicant requested two accommodations: one, that he be placed in countries where medical care for HIV was available, and two, that he be allowed to use medical leave to obtain treatment.
The trial court ruled for the State Department, finding that the applicant could not perform an essential function of the position, namely the ability to work anywhere he was placed, and that his requested accommodations were unreasonable and would place an undue burden on the State Department.
The Appeals Court found there was enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact on all three findings. First, the court questioned whether being placed anywhere in the world was an "essential function," because the State Department had recently made placement accommodations for 12 other employees with medical conditions. Second, the State Department may have used too strict a standard when calculating the applicant's need for leave. The applicant presented evidence from his physician regarding the amount of treatment he required, and it was considerably less than what the State Department estimated. Third, the applicant's request to use leave to seek treatment could possibly be accommodated, because every potential posting is within one day's journey of a city with HIV medical care. Furthermore, a State Department representative stated that the department had a day-to-day practice that allowed employees to seek routine medical monitoring without using leave anyway.
This case highlights the importance of having employers carefully review the accommodations available to and requested by employees with disabilities before making decisions denying employment opportunities.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Taylor vs. Rice, -- F.3d --, 2006 WL 1736199, (D.C. Cir., June 27, 2006)].
Female class is certified against AT&T on absence of contraceptives in health plan.
A US District Court found that a female member of a bargaining unit has a valid claim for sex and pregnancy discrimination against AT&T for providing a collectively bargained health benefit plan that did not include prescription contraceptives. The employee may represent a class of female employees similarly denied coverage under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
AT&T offered two health benefit plans. The first was an HMO that provided coverage for prescription contraceptives but had other terms the employee did not like, and the second did not provide prescription contraceptive coverage at all. AT&T managers and union-represented employees who chose the HMO were covered for prescription contraceptives, but employees who declined the HMO were not. The employee filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim, and the EEOC found AT&T probably violated Title VII. The case is currently in its pretrial stages.
This case highlights the importance of having employers review their health benefit plans to make sure they do not contain clauses that unfairly exclude one or more protected groups. Gender discrimination based on lack of benefits for contraception is particularly common and can lead to a claim the employer has violated Title VII.
-- Elaine S. Fox, Labor and Employment attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, with assistance from Melanie H. Berkowitz, Esq., Seyfarth Shaw LLP.
[For more information, see Stocking vs. AT&T Corp., -- F.Supp.2d --, 2006 WL 1788954 (W.D. Mo., June 7, 2006)].
