Legal Radar

EEOC Stiffens Protection for Pregnant Workers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the agency responsible for enforcing guidelines that are in place to protect workers in the workplace. The EEOC recently made some updates to the guidelines which deal with discriminatory behaviors or harassment against women workers who are pregnant. The new guidelines help to explain that any type of harassment or discrimination in the workplace against pregnant women is in face sexual discrimination and also illegal. The guidelines make it clear that employers cannot force pregnant workers to take leave and that they must provide light duty for pregnant employees. The new guidelines also make it clear that lactation is a pregnancy-related medical condition. The EEOC also stipulated that men and women must be allowed equal parental leave.  The issue is gaining importance since pregnancy related complaints filed with the EEOC have increased by nearly 50% over the last 15 years. The new guidelines explain how the ADA applies to pregnant workers and emphasize that discrimination agasint female workers who are pregnant is an  illegal activity.

Texas Appeals Court Okays UT's Use of Race for Admissions

Earlier this week a federal appeals court panel ruled that the University of Texas is allowed to continue to use race as a criteria for admitting undergraduate students. The university has been using race as a factor in a way to ensure the school's diversity. Last year, the case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court but was sent back for review. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling which found that if the university is not allowed to use race in its admission procedures, the student body would be less diverse which would violate a previous precedent for promoting diversity in educational facilities. The case stems from a white candidate who was denied admission to UT based on the fact that she did not graduate within the top 10% of her class in high school. 75% of the students admitted to UT Austin are in the top 10% of their classes. She sued and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court but they voted 7-1 to send the case back to the lower courts for another look.

Walgreens to Pay $180,000 Settlement in Disability Discrimination Suit

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against one of the largest drug store companies in the US. Josefina Hernandez, suffers from Type II Diabetes and was fired by a Walgreens located in South San Francisco. Hernandez allegedly ate a small bag of chips valued at $1.39 to stabilize her blood sugar during an hypoglycemic attack. Hernandez had worked for the company for nearly 18 years and had no prior disciplinary record, and the company was aware of her diabetic condition. However, when the security officer completed his testimony, he stated that he did not understand or try to get clarification when she wrote, "my sugar low. Not have time" in a reply when he asked her why she took the chips before paying for them. Walgreens agreed last week to paying $180,000 to the employee and agreed to implement revised policies along with employee training about disability discrimination. It is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act to terminate an employee because of their disability.

Employee with Fraudulent Documents May file Discrimination Suit

Mr. Salas obtained employment of the Sierra Chemical Co though the fraudulent use of someone else's social security number. He is seeking to pursue claims for discrimination and retaliation because he felt he was discriminated against. The California Supreme Court did decide that Mr. Salas can pursue his claims even though he was an undocumented employee since he allegedly was discharged on discriminatory grounds. The court stated that federal immigration laws would make it less expensive for businesses to hire undocumented immigrants and then terminate them if there was no recourse for their discriminatory actions. Even though the court understands that the workers are undocumented it does not give employers the right to discriminate in the workplace in violation of federal discrimination laws. The laws are in place to protect individuals from discrimination and retaliation in the workplace no matter how they obtain the position. It is realistic to consider that Mr. Salas could receive compensation for damages.

SC Makes Corporate Cases Addition on Upcoming Term’s Docket

The SC just recently added a group of new cases to look into this fall term, including a case involving the United Parcel Service Inc., which overlooks employer responsibilities to catering to pregnant employees.

The court made an agreement to cater to several new cases examining a number of issues that include state taxes, anti-trust problems, and discrimination.

The announcement was made one day after justices revealed the final rulings of its 2013-14 term. The court will be scheduled for a summer break before returning to proceedings this October.

The pregnancy case is centered on claiming UPS to have discriminated against a pregnant delivery truck driver. Peggy Young says UPS should’ve given her light work while pregnant, just as the firm would cater to employees who have been injured or disabled.

Lower courts sided with UPS. The 4^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that the firm’s policy didn’t the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act in any way since it provided equal treatment to both pregnancy employees and workers equally.

Huntsville School Board Call for Meeting on Pending Litigation

The school board of Huntsville called in a meeting for this Wednesday morning as a result of a federal judges’ opinion currently looking into the district’s desegregation litigation.

The call for a meeting came a day after a District Judge Madeline Haikala refused to either accept the system of the school or efforts of the U.S. Department of Justice in having the district rezoned. As an alternative, Haikala ordered mediation between both parties as they a closer look at racial differences in the city’s schools.

Further expressing her opinion, Haikala questioned whether school officials in Huntsville acted in good faith to come out of the desegregation order. Also, she questioned whether the city has provided a sufficient number of years to offer equal education for students of different races.

The Justice Department didn’t come out unscathed. The judge blasted the department’s attorneys for not taking an active role in making sure the city’s schools are assimilated equally and should provide equal course work for all students.

Disability Claim Denied for Lack of Cooperation During Capacity Evaluation

Community Financial Services Association filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that the Federal Reserve Board, the OCC and the FDIC have been illegally attempting to “choke” out payday lenders. The suit alleges that the lenders have been exerting pressure on banks privately to try to get the banks to cease engaging in financial relationships with payday lenders. In the complaint, the group of short term lenders stated that the operation has forced more than 80 banking institutions to terminate business relationships with members of CFSA and many other legal payday lenders. The lenders have petitioned the court to declare these types of activities illegal. They hope the courts will help protect the small lenders who operate legally. As part of their petition, the lenders hope that the federal agencies will be prohibited from applying pressure on larger banks in order to encourage them to stop business relationships with the payday lenders.

President to Sign Executive Order to Protect LGBT from Workplace Discrimination

President Obama is getting set to sign an executive order which will protect the LGBT community from discrimination in federal workplaces. The executive order is designed so that federal contractors are banned from discriminating against employees based on their gender identity or sexual orientation. The President feels that every single American whether they are LGBT or not, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Congress has been under pressure to pass legislation which would ban discrimination against individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. The idea is to help keep every worker in America free from discriminatory practices in the workplace. The Senate approved the legislation, but it did not make it through the House. President Obama is set to sign the order to protect LGBT individuals. However, some argue that the order should be expanded in such a way and legislation enacted which will protect the LGBT community in all workplaces, not just in federal workplaces.

EEOC Sues Disability Network for Disability Discrimination

Disability Network is a nonprofit located in Detroit. The network is designed to assist individuals with disabilities. However, the company that is supposed to help those with disabilities is facing court because of an alleged case of discrimination. The EEOC sued Disability Network for denying a deaf independent living specialist what would be considered reasonable accommodations; and then they terminated him. The employee requested the use of TTY equipment, the opportunity to use text messaging and a video phone in order to be able to communicate. The network refused the employee all of the alternate accommodations. By denying reasonable accommodations, the Disability Network is in violation of  the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC has filed suit against the nonprofit and is seeking monetary compensation for the employee who was fired. They are also seeking back pay, punitive damages and compensatory damages for emotional distress. According to the EEOC the case is ironic since the network was formed to help people with disabilities but allegedly betrayed an employee with a disability.

Supreme Court Refused to hear Mosque Case

 The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that they will not hear an appeal made by a neighborhood group which is trying to block the construction of a mosque in the town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The neighbors have thus far been unsuccessful in blocking the construction and have appealed to the Supreme Court. One of the board members from the Islamic Center stated that he hoped the Supreme Court's refusal will help bring back some unity to the small community. The argument brought up by the neighborhood has been going on since 2010. Those arguing against the mosque's construction state that there was not enough public notice given prior to the meeting of the planning commission. It was in that meeting that the approval was granted. The mosque was build anyway while the case was moving through the court systems. A lawyer which represents the opponent of the mosque stated that they have done all they can but they are now suing to prevent a cemetery on the property of the Islamic Center.