Articles Posted in Retaliation

Fail! NYU prof fired for giving actor James Franco a “D”?

December 21, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

I need to come clean with y’all. TMZ.com is one of my guilty pleasures. Don’t hate!

And you should have seen the beaming smile on my face on Monday when when I got some blogging gold as TMZ ran a story about a former college professor at NYU who claims that the school discriminated against him by firing him for, among other things, giving actor James Franco a “D”.

The monkey’s out of the bottle now! More after the jump…

* * *

Nothing good comes of forcing employees to go to brothels

December 19, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

And, then, there are those that allegedly do. It is on those occasions that this blog can practically write itself.

Take, for example, AutoNation. According to a complaint recently filed in California state court — well, let’s just say that AutoNation better have some good lawyers.

A copy of the complaint and some crazazy unlawful harassment — allegedly, of course — follows after the jump. Along with a few employer tips on same-sex harassment.

* * *

Will ya just retire already? No, but I’ll sue for age discrimination.

December 8, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Back in August, I blogged about a case where a federal court held that an employer inquiring about an employee’s retirement plans, alone, does not discriminate on the basis of age. But what about relentlessly browbeating a plaintiff into retiring? Could that be age discrimination? What do you think, Brett? Find out after the jump…

* * *

A little ambiguity creates a BIG retaliation headache for employers

October 7, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Retaliation claims have become the leading cause of action for employees. In fiscal year 2010, retaliation charges filed with the EEOC nationwide accounted for 36.3% of all filings, at 36,258. There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim:

Employee Protected Activity – opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process;

Employer Adverse Action – any adverse treatment (beyond a petty slight or a trivial annoyance) that is based on a retaliatory motive and is reasonably likely to deter protected activity; and

Causal Connection – between the protected activity and the adverse action.

What makes retaliation claims so common? Well, it’s not so much because they are are easy for employees to prove. In my opinion, it’s because retaliation claims are tough for employers to disprove prior to trial.

Case in point after the jump…

* * *

Hot Dog! EEOC accuses eatery of same-sex sexual harassment

September 28, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Frankly, Anthony Weiner ain’t got nothin’ on this Weiner.

The EEOC announced on Monday that it had sued Nu-Way Weiners, one of the oldest hot dog restaurants in the country, on behalf of two female employees. More after the jump…

* * *

Third Circuit delivers a cat’s paw gouging to employers

August 18, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.

* * *

Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.

Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.

And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…

* * *

Sleep with me, or you’re fired!

August 15, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Sex sells.

My most popular posts at The Employer Handbook — that’s based on you reading them (you’re all sick I tells ya, sick!!! And remember, I’m logging IP addresses) — generally involve some element of sexual behavior. You have the Brazilian self-stimulator. Actually, make that sexual behaviour — there’s the Australian hotel sex romp.

One of my readers asked if I’d heard about the recent sexual harassment lawsuit in Utah (the home of sex in a supply closet), in which a woman alleged, among other things, that her supervisor distributed a work schedule that included included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.” Come on, now. You know me! Just this week, I read five articles (here, here, here, here, here) about it. You can find 23 more articles about “No bra Thursday” here.

“Guess my high score in Leisure Suit Larry.”

Then there’s the NY Post story (naturally) about a 23-year-old lesbian who claims that seven staff members in her real estate office groped, slapped, flashed, fondled and subjected her to racial abuse and death threats. One of the staffers allegedly offered her $60 for oral sex and told her all Puerto Rican girls are good at it.

Me? I like writing about these cases because it’s a good excuse to use stock sexual harassment photos from Google Images — like the one on the right, which, given the size of the shoulder pads in the lady’s jacket and the dimensions of that desktop computer — no doubt housing a 5.25 inch floppy disk drive — is a screencap from L.A. Law.

How about one more sexual harassment case for ya? This time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gets in on the act and reverses summary judgment in favor of an employer where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and retaliation when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked her sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her (on the day she complained).

More on this and, of course, lessons for employers, after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: Retaliation requires job-related action (e.g., firing)

August 10, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”.

Until about five years ago, a plaintiff had to prove a materially adverse employment action in order to recover for retaliation. (I addressed the complete three-part test for retaliation in yesterday’s post).

Not so anymore. As explained briefly after the jump, the rules for retaliation have changed.

* * *

Apparently, sex in a supply closet is not sexual harassment

August 9, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

At least that’s what a federal court in Utah opined.

I promise that this is not a prurient post gratuitously conceived to drive internet traffic to The Employer Handbook.

And this case has nothing directly to do with Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Delaware employers

(Ok, that last line was shameless. Google, please do not index this post).

Oh, what the heck, index away. After the jump, I’ll even throw in some good employer takeaways for all employers, including those in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

Darn it. I did it again…

* * *

This term’s top 5 employment-law Supreme Court rulings…in haiku

July 7, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down – if not the most important – certainly, the highest-profile decision of this term with Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, in addition to this headline-grabber, this term saw four other significant employment-law decisions from the High Court about which employers must take note.

After the jump, I revisit each case…in haiku.

* * *

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? If you want a nerdy employment-lawyer brain to help you solve HR-compliance issues proactively before the action sequence, I’m here to help. I'm not only an EEOC-approved trainer, I offer day-to-day employment counseling, workplace audits and investigations, and other prophylactic measures to keep your workplace working while you focus on running your business. And for those employers in the midst of conflict, I bring all of my know-how to bear as your zealous advocate. I’m a trial-tested, experienced litigator that has represented companies of all sizes in a veritable alphabet soup of employment law claims, such as the ADA, ADEA, CEPA, FMLA, FLSA, NJLAD, PHRA, Title VII, and USERRA. I also help clients litigate disputes involving restrictive covenants such as non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, as well as conflicts over use of trade secrets and other confidential information. For more about me, my practice, and my firm, click on my full bio.