Suspended New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma is suing Roger Goodell, claiming that the commissioner "made public statements concerning Vilma which were false, defamatory and injurious to Vilma's professional and personal reputation," according to the defamation complaint. Vilma specifically identifies claims that Goodell made against the linebacker regarding the NFC Championship game in 2010.
]]> The linebacker's lawsuit says that the commissioner, and the NFL, claimed that Vilma offered a $10,000 bounty for any defensive player who could knock-out Brett Farve during the championship game. The linebacker denies offering the incentive, and says that the NFL has not produced any evidence to support the claim as being true.Vilma is one of four Saints players to receive a suspension for participating in the alleged bounty program. The linebacker is the only player to receive a suspension for an entire season. Coach Sean Payton also received a one year suspension from the NFL related to the bounty scandal.
Vilma claims that Goodell knew that the March 2 press release, and a later press release issued on March 21, announcing the NFL penalties for the so-called bounty program, would be publicly disseminated. The linebacker says the press releases made false and defamatory statements about him and have harmed his professional reputation, causing him damage.
A league spokesman says that the NFL has not reviewed the lawsuit. The league asserts that the integrity of the game and the safety of NFL players are the league's main concerns.
Source: Newsday, "Jonathan Vilma sues NFL's Roger Goodell for defamation," Tom Rock, May 17, 2012
]]>Earlier this year the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a hearing on the issue of pregnancy discrimination. And this blog reported that a law professor from here in Ohio argued that pregnancy discrimination laws are not doing enough for pregnant women in the workplace. The law professor said that pregnancy should be a matter under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Several members of Congress believe that requiring an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy is a good idea. Last week, a coalition of lawmakers introduced a bill in Congress called the Pregnancy Worker's Fairness Act.
]]> The current laws surrounding pregnancy in the workplace have drawn increasing criticism in recent years. Critics say that current workplace discrimination laws leave gaps that can act against pregnant women. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for instance, requires employers to treat a mother-to-be in a similar fashion that the employer treats other workers who are sick or disabled. Difficulties arise in the comparisons to other workers, since pregnant women are not sick or disabled.Similarly, many employers may provide injured workers with light-duty jobs, but pregnant women are often denied light-duty opportunities because the mother-to-be has no injury.
The Ohio law professor had argued earlier this year that rolling pregnancy into the scope of the ADA may help to fill gaps between the PDA, the ADA and the Family and Medical Leave Act protections that apply to pregnant women.
A coalition of lawmakers has taken a similar route to the professor's idea. The newly proposed federal workplace anti-discrimination measure introduced last week would require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The reasonable accommodations would be required under the proposed measure, but like under the ADA, employers could avoid providing accommodation upon a showing that the accommodations would create an undue hardship upon the business.
Sources:
Time, "Should Pregnant Women Be Accommodated in the Workplace?," Bonnie Rohman, May 11, 2012
WFMY, "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Introduced By Congress," Tony Smith, May 9, 2012
]]>The gender bias lawsuit also includes allegations that the women were subjected to a hostile work environment and when the workers complained to management of the discrimination and harassment, the workers say that they were intimidated and suffered retaliation from management for raising the issues.
]]> The women say that they were kept on the bottling line based upon their gender. The workers dipped the signature bottles of Maker's Mark in wax on the bottling line, which is reportedly highly visible during hourly public tours of the distillery.The lawsuit alleges that the women were denied more favorable job opportunities based upon gender bias-the visibility of female employees at the heart of the claims. In addition to high visibility during the hourly tours, the plaintiffs say that a 2011 documentary highlights management's policy of keeping women on display, instead of basing promotional decisions on qualifications other than gender\.
The lawsuit alleges that during the filming of a television documentary in June 2011, management moved a temporary male employee from the bottling line and replaced him with a woman. The lawsuit says that management made the move to ensure only women would be visible on the bottling line in the History Channel documentary.
Beam Global Spirits and Wine, the corporate parent of Maker's Mark, has reportedly not yet responded in court to the lawsuit. The company says that the allegations are only one side of the story, but the company has declined to publicly comment on the lawsuit. The sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation lawsuit was recently filed in U.S. District Court in Louisville, Kentucky.
Source: Louisville Courier-Journal, "5 women sue over alleged sexual discrimination at Maker's Mark distillery," Jere Downs, May 5, 2012
]]>He says that not only was the timeline not properly followed in his tenure evaluation process, but that he was ultimately fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. While the case does not arise in Ohio or Northern Kentucky, it does highlight specific interest to college and university personnel as well as disabled workers in any industry.
The last post discussed the former assistant professor's requests seeking accommodation for his disabling condition. The man says the school ultimately refused the majority of his requests for reasonable accommodations in November 2010.
]]> He says the school agreed to remove the springs from the doors, but the majority of his requests for accommodation were denied due to the costs, according to the federal complaint. His disability discrimination lawsuit says the springs on the doors were never touched.That December, the assistant professor was told to complete his tenure evaluation packet by mid-January. He says a subsequent email moved the due date up by roughly two weeks and that the email requested the assistant professor to submit additional information for the tenure evaluation process.
The assistant professor says that the rules required the school to notify him bay March 1, 2011, if he was not going to be retained for the following school year. In mid-April, 2011, he says the school had decided to terminate him, effective May 13, 2011, without any severance.
The former assistant professor says that his termination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Source: Albuquerque Journal, "Ex-Tech Prof Files Discrimination Suit," El Defensor Chieftain, May 2, 2012
]]>The allegations are a part of the former assistant professor's disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the school's board of regents. While employment issues in academia can have unique reappointment, promotion and tenure processes, Ohio and Northern Kentucky college and university employment lawyers know that federal workplace discrimination laws also apply at institutions of higher learning.
]]> The recent disability discrimination lawsuit is filed in New Mexico. Complications from a 2002 surgical procedure followed the former assistant professor who was diagnosed, at some point, with chronic pancreatitis. He apparently was able to manage the pain for some time, but in 2010, his condition became debilitating. The man needed to use a wheelchair due to his chronic condition.In the fall of 2010, the assistant professor asked that the school repair the automatic doors to the building where he taught his courses. He also asked for other reasonable accommodations for his disability, including removing the springs to his office door and a restroom near his office so that the doors would not snapped closed before he could navigate through the doors in his wheelchair, according to his workplace discrimination lawsuit.
He reportedly also asked that a graduate student be allowed to assist in handing out materials to students and clean the chalkboards in the classroom.
In the next post, this blog will discuss what the assistant professor says about the school's response to his requests for reasonable accommodation, and also his claim that the school shortened his tenure evaluation process before ultimately firing the assistant professor.
Source: Albuquerque Journal, "Ex-Tech Prof Files Discrimination Suit," El Defensor Chieftain, May 2, 2012
]]>The Louisiana based treatment facility at issue in the recent settlement was sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act after firing a worker based upon her disability, according to the lawsuit. The worker was severely obese, but had successfully performed her essential work duties from the time that she was hired in 1999 until she was fired in September 2007.
]]> The employer sought to have the case thrown out, but the judge denied the company's motion, holding that severe obesity is an impairment that is covered by the American with Disabilities Act. The trial court judge further held that sever obesity may qualify under the ADA, regardless of whether the impairment was caused by a separate physiological disorder.The federal judge based the decision on Fifth Circuit rulings interpreting the ADA, and the court concluded that the federal workplace discrimination law does not require a disabled worker "to prove the underlying basis of [his or her] impairment.
It is important to note that Ohio is not in the Fifth Circuit, but in the Sixth Circuit, and the recent settlement was reached after the trial court ruled, with no apparent appeal to a federal appellate court. A regional attorney of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where the case was originally filed says that,
"This case highlights the fact that severely obese people who can do their jobs are every bit as protected by the ADA as people with any other qualifying disability. Any notion that these individuals are not protected, based on the wrongheaded idea that their condition is self-inflicted, is simply wrong and without legal basis."
General Counsel for the EEOC says that the ADA protects all disabled workers from workplace discrimination. He says, "Severe obesity is no exception. It is important for employers to realize that stereotypes, myths, and biases about that condition should not be the basis of employment decisions."
The parent company that operates the Southern treatment facility of chemically dependent people has agreed to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit for damages and other relief, including nationwide training on disability issues.
It is important to note the sad fact that the woman who was fired in September 2007 unfortunately passed way before the disability discrimination lawsuit was filed in federal court.
Source: EEOC, "Resources for Human Development Settles EEOC Disability Suit for $125,000," April 10, 2012
]]>The woman had worker for an East Coast business as a clerical worker dating back to 2009. The woman decided to move south during the summer of 2010, but by fall of that year, had returned to New York for a visit. During her trip to the Big Apple, she stopped by her former workplace and says that she learned her former boss needed a kidney transplant. The woman said that she would be willing to donate her kidney to save the former supervisor's life.
]]> By January 2011, the woman moved back to New York to stay and quickly got her old job back. Things had not worked well for the boss in her pursuit to obtain a new kidney, and she reportedly asked the clerical worker if her offer was still open. The employee agreed to give up a kidney for her boss.Doctors say that the kidney was a close match, but not close enough, so the kidney was actually donated to a network, so that the boss would move up on the kidney donation list.
Shortly after giving up her kidney, the worker says she suffered from pain, discomfort in her legs and digestive problems. She was at home recovering, but says that her boss urged the worker to return quickly to work. That pressure occurred while the boss herself was recovering from her own surgery.
The worker returned to work, but it apparently was too soon, and after three days went home sick. The worker says that her boss called her at home and berated her for going home sick. Later, the worker, a single mother of two, says that she was demoted, lost potential overtime hours and was transferred to a remote part of the company that made her commute a 50 mile drive.
The worker reportedly essentially complained to management about the adverse treatment she had received since she had donated a kidney to benefit her boss. She says that she was fired a short time later. Now she and her attorney are planning on filing a wrongful termination and employment discrimination lawsuit against the company.
Source: Fox News, "Suit: Woman fired after donating kidney to boss," New York Post, April 23, 2012
]]>In some cases, however, federal anti-discrimination laws can be at issue for tenure-track positions in higher education. Recently, an age discrimination lawsuit was filed against a private liberal arts college on the East Coast, related to the hiring process for a tenure-track assistant professorship at the college.
]]> A 64-year-olod choreographer was reportedly the leading candidate for an assistant professorship in dance composition with the educational institution. The woman was selected as one of three finalists for the open position, and evidence shows that she was the leading candidate deep into the selection process.Things changed, however, when the selection committee expanded its search after selecting the three finalists and included a 37-year-old, less-qualified candidate, according to the employment discrimination lawsuit. The fourth so-called finalist was later hired for the tenure-track position. Evidence suggests that the search committee had expanded the search to include the younger candidate because the committee considered her to be "at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position."
The recently filed age discrimination lawsuit claims that age was the deciding factor in the hiring process. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discriminatory practices in the workplace that are aimed toward workers or job applicants who are age 40 or older.
An EEOC lawyer on the East Coast says that, "Under the law, age has no place in hiring decisions --and tenure-track positions in academia are no exception."
Source: EEOC, "Marymount Manhattan College Sued by EEOC for Age Discrimination," April 18, 2012
]]>The two sister shows--The Bachelor and the Bachelorette--have received criticism in recent years for their lack of diversity, and now two men claim that that lack of diversity is due to systematic racial discrimination.
The men claim that the lack of diversity is a calculated affirmation decision that adversely affects minorities. "The refusal to hire minority applicants is a conscious attempt to minimize the risk of alienating their majority-white viewership and the advertisers targeting that viewership," according to the lawsuit.
]]> The men claim that neither show has featured a single person of color in a starring role in the 10 years the shows have been on the air. In all, the 10 year period involves a total of 23 seasons of episodes between the two sister television shows.One of the men, a 26-year-old high school football coach who played college ball at Tennessee State and aspires to try out for the NFL, said recently at a news conference that he was stopped immediately when he appeared at the casting call. He says that a show representative asked what he was doing at the hotel where the casting call for the leading role was being held. He says that he was allowed to submit some materials, but white men appeared to get more consideration at the hotel for the lead role.
Sources indicate that the producers of the shows say that they have tried to increase diversity, but claim that minorities are not applying for roles. Sources say that a Portland-based sportscaster is currently vying to be the first black bachelor and that talks are underway to that end.
The two men who have filed the racial discrimination lawsuit say that they intend to seek class-action status for the suit. The lawsuit has been brought in Nashville, where the two plaintiffs reside under a federal civil rights law that bars businesses from refusing to enter contracts with other based upon race and California (where the shows are produced) anti-discrimination laws.
Source: The Washington Post, "2 black men file racial discrimination suit against popular 'Bachelor,' 'Bachelorette' shows," Associated Press, April 18, 2012
]]>Recently, a federal judge ruled that a teacher at a Catholic school in Cincinnati could proceed with her employment law and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against the school, essentially concluding that the ministerial exception does not apply to the Cincinnati teacher's situation.
]]> The woman says that she was fired shortly after telling the school that she was five-and-a-half months pregnant and sought to take maternity leave from her teaching position. The woman reportedly says that the church originally fired her for being single and pregnant, but the basis of the firing changed due to pregnancy discrimination laws. The church said that the teacher was terminated for using artificial insemination, which the church considers immoral.The woman sued and the Archdiocese argued that the ministerial exception should bar the workplace discrimination lawsuit against the religious institution. The judge held off ruling on the issue until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on the ministerial exception earlier this year.
The fired teacher is not a Catholic, although she was employed at a parochial school. The judge found that the Archdiocese employed other non-Catholics, but did not allow non-Catholics to teach religion classes in the Catholic school. The judge found further that the school did not hold the fired teacher out as a minister or give her any other ministerial responsibilities. The judge concluded that the ministerial exception does not apply to the Cincinnati teacher's lawsuit.
The teacher argued that a clause in her employment contract with the church related to artificial insemination should be held unenforceable, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. She argued that the contract provision regarding artificial insemination only applies to women, and is therefore unenforceable because of the gender bias. The judge reportedly left that issue open for trial.
Source: Cincinnati Enquirer, "Fired single, pregnant teacher wins court decision," Kimball Perry, April 2, 2012
]]>The disability discrimination claim was brought on the basis that the fire department had discriminated against her based upon a "perceived disability." The workers' compensation retaliation claim was brought based upon her adverse treatment on the job that came on the heels of a workers' compensation claim. That claim also overlapped with the disability discrimination claim.
Ohio and Northern Kentucky employment discrimination lawyers know that often facts can overlap under different state and federal laws that are in place to protect workers from discriminatory practices in the workplace. At times, it can be vital to bring numerous claims to aggressively pursue a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.
]]> In the recent workplace discrimination lawsuit, which arose in the Pacific Northwest, the firefighter had a medical episode in which her heart stopped in an off-duty incident. Doctors believe that the medical episode was triggered by a virus the firefighter contracted at work. She went out on a workers' compensation claim, and as a result of her treatment, doctors fitted her with a heart pacemaker.She returned to work with the full support of her cardiologist, who had cleared her to resume all duties in her firefighting profession. What is more, the city's own medical advisor reportedly agreed the woman was medically fit to work as a firefighter. She says that she was essentially demoted, subjected to increased requirements and supervisors tried to force her to quit upon her return to work.
In the workplace discrimination and retaliation lawsuit, the woman claimed that based upon statements of fire department officials, the city "was not prepared to bring her back to work as a firefighter." She based the allegations, in part, on admissions of a department deputy chief of operations, who was uninformed about pacemakers.
The firefighter claimed the city demoted her, subjected her to menial tasks, required her to submit to extensive and unnecessary medical exams and physical performance tests not required of other firefighters, including male firefighters. She says that the pacemaker was not an impairment and the fire department's perception of a disability violated workplace discrimination laws.
The city claims that it acted reasonably in the circumstances. However, the city resolved the employment discrimination lawsuit, with more than a-quarter-million dollar settlement agreement with the firefighter.
Source: The Register-Guard, "Firefighter settles suit for $285,000," Karen McCowan, April 10, 2012
]]>The case did not arise in Ohio, but Ohio law allows residents to obtain protection orders in a variety of situations--a person who violates such a court order can then be charged with a crime for violating the order. Many protection orders include prohibiting the person subject to the court order from contacting the person protected at his or her place of employment.
]]> The recent lawsuit against Macy's arose in our neighboring state, Pennsylvania. The woman originally began working at a Macy's salon as a manager in 2006. During the summer of 2009, she reportedly feared that her then-husband may have wanted to harm her, and she sought and obtained a protection order under her state's law, based upon alleged threats that her then-husband had made toward her.When the court issued the protection order, a deputy notified Macy's of its existence, so that the woman's employer would be aware of the order and be able to lookout for the man, should he enter the workplace. The woman claims in a sex discrimination lawsuit that after her employer learned of the protection order, a supervisor told her to go home-which she did.
She was then told not to return to work and Macy's sent her a separation agreement, according to the lawsuit. She refused to sign the severance agreement, but she was later replaced by a male manager at the salon.
She claims in her sex discrimination lawsuit that her termination for seeking a protective order has a strong element of gender bias underlying the employer's decision to terminate her. She claims that, because women request the vast majority of protective orders, terminating an employee for seeking such a lawful order has a disparate impact upon women.
The lawsuit was filed more than a month ago in a state court. Macy's reportedly has had the case removed to federal court. Macy's has reportedly declined to comment on the workplace discrimination lawsuit.
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Woman dismissed from Macy's after getting protection order sues," Rich Lord, March 21, 2012
]]>The letter requests that the president sign an executive order to prohibit such discriminatory practices among federal contractors. Sources say that the Labor Department and the Justice Department have each given approval for the executive order and have made recommendations to the Obama administration, which has made no comment on the proposal.
]]> The letter states that the executive order "would extend important workplace protections to millions of Americans, while at the same time laying the groundwork for Congressional passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act." The letter acknowledges that the executive order would not be comprehensive for the American workforce, as it would only apply to federal contractors.Several Congresses in recent years have considered ENDA, which has failed to pass. The congressional measure would ban workplace bias based upon actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity reasons.
The lawmakers say in the letter to the president that research shows that 43 percent of LGB people and 90 percent of transgender Americans have experienced discrimination in the workplace.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund joined in support of the executive order this week. The group is the first non-LGBT civil rights group to join in support of creating the new executive rule.
Source: Ms. Magazine, "Lawmakers Request LGBT Rights Executive Order," April 6, 2012
]]>The woman suffered from renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, but those disabilities reportedly had no adverse impact on the worker's ability to perform her duties with the home care company. After the company fired her, the company was sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging disability discrimination.
]]> The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced this week that the disability discrimination lawsuit has settled for monetary damages and other relief. The company has agreed to provide training to its supervisors and managers in Southwest Ohio on issues related to disability discrimination.The ADA protects workers in Ohio and Northern Kentucky, like anywhere in the nation against discriminatory practices based upon a disability or perceived disability in the workplace. A regional lawyer for the EEOC says that, "Treating an employee badly based on a physical impairment violates the very core of the ADA."
The recent lawsuit apparently was based upon the firing of the impaired worker. A brief press release issued by the EEOC does not suggest that the recently settled lawsuit involved any issue related to a provision of the ADA involving reasonable accommodations, as the agency says that the worker never appeared to have any problems in more than a decade with the company before she was fired.
It is important to note that the ADA generally requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for an otherwise qualified worker to assist the employee to perform job duties, unless the reasonable accommodations would cause the company undue hardship. Obviously, the issues can be complex.
Workers, or job applicants, who believe they have suffered from discriminatory practices based upon impairment should consider speaking with a seasoned Ohio employment discrimination lawyer to learn what protections the ADA provides.
Source: EEOC, "Personal Touch Home Care Of Ohio to Pay $35,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit," April 2, 2012
]]>The EEOC is promulgating a new rule that is intended to provide guidance on age discrimination issues for employees, employers, lawyers and the courts in how to analyze certain employment law issues that may arise under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
]]> The EEOC rule says that the ADEA prohibits policies and practices of employers that effectively harm older workers more than younger workers, unless the company can show that the company's policy is actually based upon a reasonable factor other than age.The new final EEOC rule, known as the "Final Regulation on Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other than Age," applies to private employers with more than 20 employees and government employers and agencies. Labor organizations and employment agencies are also subject to the rule, according to the EEOC.
Workers age 40 or more are protected under the ADEA from discriminatory practices in the workplace. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the ADEA, employers must show a reasonable basis other than age when the companies make layoffs that appear to target workers who are age 40 and older.
After the economic meltdown increased the number of mass layoffs, the EEOC held public hearings in 2009 and 2010 to address concerns that the mass layoffs may have unfairly impacted older workers based upon age. The agency also had concerns that the high unemployment rates among older workers may have been the result of age bias, and not related to job performance of adversely affected older workers.
The EEOC says that the new rule comports with Supreme Court precedent and strikes a balance between protecting employees from discrimination in the workplace and an employer's ability to make non-discriminatory business decisions.
While workers are among the intended beneficiaries of the new guidance, Cincinnati workplace discrimination lawyers are aware that many Ohio workers may find that an experienced attorney can help the worker in assessing issues such as workplace age discrimination.
Source: EEOC, "EEOC Issues Final Rule on "Reasonable Factors Other than Age" Under the ADEA," Mar. 29, 2012
]]>