crane and back up. Crane operators were directed to just go to the
railing at the edge and urinate over
the side. This policy was dangerous, or impossible, for female
operators. It also required the
women (unlike men) to substantially remove work pants and
undergarments in full public view.
A federal court concluded that the
policy had a “significant discriminatory impact on women.” The
policy created a safety and privacy
issue that “adversely affects the
health of female employees, while
leaving male employees unaffected.” Johnson v. A.K. Steel Corp.
(S.D. Ohio, 2008).
Kiss-and-tell results in retaliation verdict for bikini contestant.
The chairman of the board for a
public youth agency saw one of
the agency’s receptionists competing in a local bikini contest. He
approached her and gave her a
kiss (he aimed for her lips but she
turned her head). She then told a
coworker that she was not offended but was surprised by the chair’s
behavior. When the story filtered
up, higher management became
concerned about the “politically
sensitive” nature of the incident.
There was concern the receptionist might become a witness in a
sexual-harassment case. She was
then given stern warning about
her off-the-job interaction with
board members. She complained
about this and was subjected to “a
baseless and inappropriate level of
disciplinary actions detrimentally
affecting her future employment
in state service.” The evidence
showed a manager singled her
out and trumped up charges for
discipline in order to force her
to leave and “get her out of the
way” of any investigation of the
agency or the chair. A jury awarded
$156,000 under the California Fair
Employment Act. Steele v. Youthful
Offender Parole Board (Cal. Ct. of
App., 2008).
White police officers awarded
$10 million. Three white officers
openly opposed racist mistreatment
and bias directed toward their Black
coworkers. The city of Philadelphia
settled the race-discrimination
suit brought by the Black police
officers. Then the white officers
who had spoken out against the
discrimination were subjected to
retaliatory harassment by other
officers and supervisors. They sued
the city and nine other personally
named officers and supervisors
under Title VII and 42 U.S. Code
§1983. A jury awarded the three officers $5 million, $3 million and $2
million, respectively. (The city had
made a pretrial settlement offer of
$10,000.) Moore, et al. v. Philadelphia
(E.D., PA, 2008).
Medical condition does not
justify credit-card abuse. A fired
employee lost her disability-,
sex- and race-discrimination case.
While on medical leave, she used
the business credit card for $8,350
in personal cash advances. She
could identify no one of a different
gender or race who had not been
fired for such an infraction. Her
argument that she was in financial straits “due to her disability”
(carpal tunnel) was not a viable
reason under the ADA to excuse
the embezzlement. Woods v. U.S.
Postal Service (N.D. Texas, 2008).
Immigration Nursing Relief Act
case results in $1 million award
in Department of Labor (DOL)
suit against nursing home. A
nursing-home chain was found to
have paid 119 nurses it recruited
from the Philippines less than
its U.S. citizen nurses doing the
same work. INRA has no statute of
limits on how far in the past back
pay may be awarded. The nursing
home also lost its argument that
the DOL did not have jurisdiction,
since none of the nurses or any
other “aggrieved party” had filed
any complaint. DOL had self-initiated the case based on a “tip.”
The court ruled that nothing in the
statutes keeps the DOL (or most
other federal agencies) from acting
independently to assure that employers follow the law. Alden Mgt.
Services v. Chao (7th Cir., 2008).
No same-sex benefits for Michigan public employees. The state
supreme court ruled that Michigan’s 2004 constitutional “
marriage amendment” bars public employers from providing same-sex
insurance benefits to employees.
The amendment provides that
the benefits of a “marriage or similar union” shall be provided only
for “the union of one man and one
woman.” Presumably, under the
amendment, those benefits can
still be provided to unmarried heterosexual “domestic partners” who
have a “similar union” to marriage.
National Pride at Work v. Gov. of
Michigan (Mich., 2008). [Interest-ingly, the governor of Michigan,
Jennifer Granholm, supported
the granting of same-sex benefits.
The governor had to be named as
the official executive for purposes
of suing the state to challenge the
new amendment.]
Bob Gregg, partner in Boardman
Law Firm, shares his monthly column
on diversity-related legal issues with
our readers. He can be reached at
rgregg@boardmanlawfirm.com.
