On July 27, 2007, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued Taylor v. Bigelow Management, Inc., et al., 2007 WL 2164282 (5th Cir. 2007), an opinion that should serve as a reminder to employers that pregnancy discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Taylor, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court jury trial in which the jury found that an employer was liable for pregnancy discrimination and awarded the plaintiff court costs plus approximately $10,000 for back pay and mental anguish and $50,000 in punitive damages.
Continue Reading United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Opinion Reminding Employers That Pregnancy Discrimination Is Illegal

It is important for employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “Act”) to remember the impact which the Act can have on employment policies and rules – including, but not limited to, policies and rules in connection with confidentiality. This article is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of this area. Instead, it will merely refer to portions of the recent decision in Cintas Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, 482 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 2007) which “involve[d] an allegation that the confidentiality rule of [an employer] violated provisions” of the NLRA. Id. at 464.
Continue Reading Do You Remember the Impact the National Labor Relations Act Can Have on Employment Policies and Rules?

On May 29, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Col, Inc., – U.S. –, 127 S.Ct. 2162 (2007), a decision favorable to employers and enforcing the timeliness requirements under Title VII for bringing a claim for alleged discriminatory pay. The court ruled that an employer’s decision setting an employee’s pay or raise within an otherwise neutral pay structure was a “discrete act,” triggering the running of the limitations period under Title VII. The plaintiff argued unsuccessfully that the pay claim was always timely because the disparate pay continued and compounded throughout her employment.
Continue Reading Title VII Time Limits For Claim For Alleged Discriminatory Pay Enforced

In a recent decision, the Federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that temporal proximity standing alone can be sufficient proof of “but for” causation in a Title VII retaliatory discharge claim. In Strong v. University Health Care System, L.L.C., 2007 WL 891148 (5th Cir. (La.)), plaintiff Laurie Strong sued UHS alleging gender discrimination and retaliatory discharge.

Strong worked as a nurse coordinator for UHS, a large Louisiana hospital. She complained to one of her supervisors on December 15, 2003 of alleged gender discrimination by a hospital surgeon, based largely on angry comments by the surgeon on three separate occasions that she was “stupid” and “lazy.” Both before and after the date of this complaint, however, numerous complaints had been made about Strong’s behavior in the workplace by patients, co-workers, supervisors, and physicians. Strong was eventually terminated no March 31, 2004 for poor performance, improper work conduct, arguing with superiors, and obstructing various departmental policies. On November 24, 2004, Strong filed her complaint alleging Title VII and Louisiana law violations.Continue Reading “Temporal Proximity” Alone Insufficient To Prove Retaliatory Discharge Claim

On March 1, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed the “Employee Free Choice Act of 2007.” The bill passed by a 56 vote margin. The bill was sponsored by Rep. George Miller (D) of California. Louisiana Reps. William Jefferson (D) and Charlie Melancon (D) were two of the bill’s 233 co-sponsors. Only seven House Republicans joined as co-sponsors. Thirteen Republicans joined House Democrats in voting for the bill, and two Democrats voted against it. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D) of Massachusetts is expected to introduce similar legislation in the Senate. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky pledged to fight the bill. Pres. George Bush is expected to veto the bill should it pass the Senate.

So what is the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007? What’s the big deal?

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 amends the National Labor Relations Act (which was last amended nearly 70 years ago) and provides new, more relaxed, rules for the selection of an employees’ collective bargaining representative (i.e., unions).Continue Reading IS A CHANGE IN THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT ON THE HORIZON?

In a recent Supreme Court decision, the Court held that Title VII’s requirement that a covered “employer” meet a minimum threshold number of employees is not “jurisdictional” but is part of the requisite elements of a claim for relief. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097, 74 USLW 4138 (2006). The effect of holding that the threshold is not “jurisdictional” was to abrogate previous Fifth Circuit jurisprudence treating Title VII’s employee-numerosity requirements as a matter of federal court subject-matter jurisdiction that is not subject to waiver or estoppel.
Continue Reading Is It Jurisdictional?

It is common for an employer to require an employee to provide a medical release or to submit to a medical examination before returning to work after a sickness or medical leave. Some employees contend the time it takes to complete this process amounts to involuntary FMLA leave and they should receive all benefits of the Act related to such leave. In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, the court recognized that an employer can place an employee on “involuntary” FMLA leave if the employee has provided the employer with notice of the employee’s “serious health condition,” and the involuntary nature of the leave does not deprive the employee of rights under the Act.    Willis v. Coca Cola Enterprises, Inc., 2006 WL 827359 (5th Cir. March 31, 2006).

The facts in Willis are interesting. Willis was a Senior Account Manager with Coca Cola Enterprises. On a Monday, in May 2003, she called her supervisor and told him she would not be at work that day because she was sick. In the same conversation, she told her supervisor she was pregnant, but she did not specifically tell her supervisor she was sick because of her pregnancy.Continue Reading 5TH CIRCUIT RECOGNIZES THAT AN EMPLOYER’S PLACEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE ON LEAVE CAN RESULT IN “INVOLUNTARY” FMLA LEAVE IF…

The Louisiana House of Representative, House Labor Committee approved SB 700 by a vote of 6-5. SB 700 would set a state-wide minimum wage of $6.15 or $1.00 higher than the existing federal minimum wage. As written, SB 700 has several exceptions. SB 700 now goes to the full House of Representatives for consideration. The