A collective action of correctional officers alleged that under the FLSA, they should be compensated for the time they cannot leave the prison and must remain in uniform.
The mantra to 'document all performance issues' before terminating an employee is underscored by the court’s findings in the Landolfi case.
We must resist the urge to fight this new war in our workplaces by harassing and otherwise discriminating against those who have the right to work, and enjoy that right free from discrimination and harassment.
While employees must think before they click, employers must think longer before they discipline for fire because of that click.
Kevin Stuckey, an African-American, worked for AutoZone Inc. as a salesperson and then as a manager. During his employment, Stuckey was transferred to multiple stores in Chicago. Following his transfer in July 2012, in which his pay and job responsibilities were supposed to remain the same, Stuckey never returned to work. Instead he filed a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge of discrimination claiming that his transfer was initiated because of his race. The EEOC filed a lawsuit on Stuckey’s behalf, claiming that Stuckey’s transfer was part of a plan to “limit, segregate or classify” employees on the basis of race. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to AutoZone, holding that even in a disparate impact case, the employees must show that they suffered an adverse action. The court held that there was no evidence that Stuckey’s transfer resulted in an objectively humiliating or degrading change in working conditions. EEOC v. AutoZone Inc., No. 14-cv-5579(Aug. 4, 2015).
IMPACT: Transferring employees to different locations is a legitimate business reason as long as it does not result in an objectively humiliating or degrading change in working conditions for the employee based on some protected classification such as race or sex.
Mark T. Kobata and Marty Denis are partners in the law firm Barlow, Kobata and Denis, which has offices in Beverly Hills, California, and Chicago.To comment, email email@example.com.
An ostracism from a social network likely should not support a claim for retaliation.
Employees who request accommodations should always be treated with care; otherwise you risk stepping on a retaliation land mine.
This loosening of the proof standard has the potential to be significant.
Employees cannot use California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act to dictate who they will and won’t work with.