Labor Employment Law Blog

In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville et al., the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an employee is protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 even when the employee has not filed a formal charge or complaint against the employer. This case serves as a reminder to all employers that information learned from an employee in one context may serve as the underpinning for legal action in another.

Continue Reading

On July 21, 2008, Justice Carol Robinson Edmead of the New York County Supreme Court denied a motion to dismiss a claim for unequal compensation brought against the owners, operators and several individual employees of Cipriani restaurant in Manhattan by a female server.  Torres v. Vittoria Corp., 114667-07 (N.Y. Sup., July 21, 2008).  The Torres decision is particularly notable because the basis for plaintiff’s unequal compensation claim was that she and other female servers were consistently assigned to the breakfast shift, which generated lower tips, while male servers were given the more lucrative lunch and dinner shifts.

Continue Reading

The Second Circuit's ruling in Westrec Marina Management v. Arrowood Indemnity Co. is a warning to employers to report potential claims to their insurance carrier as soon as possible or face denial of coverage.  In Westrec, an employee filed a charge of discrimination against Westrec with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and requested an immediate right to sue letter.  Subsequently, her attorney sent a demand letter to Westrec asserting claims and seeking possible early settlement prior to filing a lawsuit.  At the time of the letter, Westrec failed to inform its insurer, Arrowood, of the claim.  The employee later filed a civil action, and when Westrec tendered the claim, Arrowood denied coverage.

Continue Reading

On August 9, 2007, the Ninth Circuit held in Craig v. M & O Agencies that an employee's 19-day delay in reporting blatant sexually offensive and unacceptable behavior by a direct supervisor did not necessarily constitute an unreasonable failure to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer. Thus, the employer could not avoid a trial under Title VII for the supervisor's actions.    Continue Reading

On July 18, 2007, California's Office of Administrative Law approved, with minor modification, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission's sexual harassment training and education regulations.  The newly approved regulations will become effective August 17, 2007.  The regulations clarify employers' obligations to provide supervisors with sexual harassment training under the Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA").

Continue Reading

Workplace romances not only provide an endless stream of water-cooler gossip, they also raise numerous legal concerns, such as those dealing with privacy, sexual harassment, and unlawful termination.  More and more employers seek to limit their exposure to the legal liability and morale problems that result from disintegrated interpersonal relationships in the workplace by adopting policies that ban fraternization between co-workers.  However, a recent federal decision held that a blanket, non-fraternization policy that "implicitly" precluded employees from engaging in union or concerted activity was unenforceable in violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). Continue Reading

Recently in Walsh v. Nevada Department of Human Resources, Division of Healthcare, Finance and Policy, et al. (No. 04-17440) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individuals cannot be personally liable for damages in discrimination suits brought pursuant to Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12117.  Prior to the Walsh decision, the Ninth Circuit had never addressed the issue of personal liability under Title I of the ADA.  In Walsh, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that Congress did not intend to allow individuals to be personally liable for discrimination under Title I of the ADA because the statute expressly limits liability to employers with 15 or more workers.  Previously, other Circuit Courts had reached similar conclusions. Continue Reading

On November 14, 2006, California's Fair Employment and Housing Commission ("FEHC") adopted its October 2, 2006, modified harassment training regulations as its final proposed regulations.  The regulations interpret the sexual harassment training requirements set forth in California Government Code Section 12950.1. Continue Reading

On April 20, 2006, the California Supreme Court issued an eagerly awaited decision in the case of Amani Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, the company which wrote and produced the popular television show Friends.

The plaintiff, an African-American woman, was hired by Warner Brothers to attend and transcribe show writers' meetings. She was terminated after four months of employment because of problems with her typing and transcription. Subsequently, she sued, asserting a host of employment-related causes of action, including racial and sexual harassment, race and sex discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and retaliation for making complaints of purportedly unlawful behavior.
Continue Reading

On December 16, 2005, California's Fair Housing and Employment Commission ("the Commission") issued proposed regulations which clarify employers' obligations to provide supervisors with sexual harassment training under the Fair Employment & Housing Act ("FEHA"). Pursuant to the FEHA, employers with 50 or more employees are required to provide two hours of sexual harassment training and education to all supervisory employees at least once before January 1, 2006 and at least once every two years thereafter.

Continue Reading

The California Supreme Court unanimously held that sufficiently widespread sexual favoritism can convey a demeaning message to female employees that they are viewed by management as "sexual playthings," creating an actionable hostile work environment under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"). Miller v. Department of Corrections, No. S114097 (July 18, 2005). The decision reversed the 3rd District Court of Appeal's unanimous 2003 panel decision that upheld a Sacramento Superior Court's grant of summary judgment.

Continue Reading

Q. Are employers required to provide sexual harassment training to supervisory employees?

Continue Reading