Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Bell was employed as a substance abuse counselor at an Indiana maximum security prison. An investigator, looking for security breaches, discovered that night-shift employees were having sex on Bell’s desk and told her that he was not concerned about night-shift staff having sex but suggested she wash her desk every morning. The superintendent said that, as long as inmates were not involved, he was not concerned. Immediately thereafter, the superintendent discovered that Bell was having an affair with the Major in charge of custody (allegedly involving sex on his desk) and both were terminated. The prison settled the Major’s appeal to the State Employees’ Appeals Commission and called him to testify against Bell at her appeal. Major was able to keep his benefits, including his pension, to quickly get unemployment benefits, and to subsequently begin working at the prison as a contractor. Bell was not afforded similar benefits and opportunities and filed suit, alleging Title VII claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. The district court granted summary judgment to the state, concluding that Bell was not similarly situated to the Major, that she failed to prove retaliation, and that the sexual tenor of the prison’s work environment was not severe or pervasive enough to qualify as hostile. The Seventh Circuit reversed with regard to the discrimination and hostile environment claims, but affirmed with regard to her retaliation claims. View "Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Jewel Foods employed Reeves as a bagger from 1997 until his dismissal in 2005. Reeves has Down syndrome and received vocational tutoring from Jewel; a social service agency sent a job coach to work with Reeves. Jewel’s Service Manager provided individual training. Jewel instituted supervision policies that applied only to Reeves. Reeves, unlike the other baggers, was exempted from collecting shopping carts from the parking lot after he was found directing customers how to park their cars. Reeves sometimes had trouble complying with workplace rules. He cursed at a manager when the table at which he usually ate lunch was used for a tasting; he once cursed within earshot of a customer about another customer. In 2005, Reeves took an American flag pin from a store shelf without paying for it, apparently not realizing the pins were for sale. Despite its usual policy, Jewel decided not to fire him. Reeves’s parents asked if Jewel could bring back a job coach. Reeves’s supervisor deemed the extra instruction unnecessary. Reeves was later terminated for cursing at another employee within earshot of a customer and other employees. The EEOC concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe both that Jewel discriminated against Reeves because of his disability and that Jewel engaged in a pattern and practice of denying reasonable accommodations to disabled employees. The district court dismissed his Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101, failure‐to‐accommodate claim, citing numerous accommodations Jewel had made and the fact that Jewel did not explicitly reject the Reeves’s job coach suggestion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Reeves v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Tank, who was born in India, worked for T-Mobile as a vice president. After two investigations relating to his treatment of colleagues, he was fired. Tank filed suit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and disparate pay. The district court entered summary judgment for T-Mobile. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Based on the circumstantial evidence Tank provided, no reasonable jury could conclude that T-Mobile fired Tank because of his national origin or race or that the human resources director harbored discriminatory animus or was deliberately indifferent to Tank’s claim. The employees to whom Tank compared himself were not valid comparators.View "Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

After exhausting the EEOC process, Carlson brought sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, against her employer, CSX, a railway company, and brought a related contract claim based on a settlement she had reached with CSX of an earlier discrimination lawsuit. CSX argued that the claims were implausible and that some were precluded by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) because they were based on company decisions justified by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed most of Carlson’s claims for failure to state a claim, and held that the RLA precluded the remaining claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, finding the allegations in her complaint ‘easily sufficient” to state claims for sex discrimination and retaliation. The RLA, which requires that claims arising under collective bargaining agreements in the railway and airline industries be decided in arbitration, does not preclude Carlson’s claims, which arise under Title VII and a private contract between Carlson and CSX. View "Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc." on Justia Law

Hutt worked for Solvay Pharmaceuticals as a sales representative, 2001-2007. Her supervisor, who had recruited her to Solvay from a different company, gave her satisfactory ratings in most categories, but repeatedly informed Hutt that she needed to improve her punctuality and consistency in submitting internal reports. When her supervisor retired, Lozen was appointed the new Indianapolis sales district manager by Westfall, himself a newly‐appointed regional manager. Hutt worked under Lozen and Westfall 2008-2011 and had several conflicts with them, which resulted in several disciplinary actions. She was ineligible for bonus pay while on warning status for seven quarters. In 2009, Hutt filed a complaint with the EEOC, followed by a lawsuit, alleging age discrimination and retaliation and violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The district court rejected the claims on summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Hutt established no causal connection between the filing of the EEOC charge and adverse employment actions. A claim that Hutt and another were singled out for worse treatment based on their age was only asserted with “reliance on speculation.” View "Hutt v. Solvay Pharma., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2010 Price was a full-time tenured Chicago Public Schools teacher who was working in a program to improve the class-room teaching skills of other teachers. In all of her evaluations, she was rated excellent or superior. In 2010, the Board of Education authorized the discharge of 1,289 teachers, some of whom were tenured. At the same time as the layoffs, Price alleges CPS was continuing to hire teachers to fill vacant positions, including new hires with no prior experience. Price alleges that she was not considered for any vacant positions, nor was she given any notice of existing vacant positions before her layoff and that the Board did not implement procedures to allow laid-off tenured teachers to show they were qualified to fill vacant positions. Price filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit one year later on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated teachers. The district court dismissed because Price did not identify any protected property interest that could give rise to a due process claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, based on an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that tenure did not create the claimed property rights. View "Price v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Spaine was a seasonal employee from 2008 until 2011, helping low-income and disabled persons register for housing assistance. Spaine alleges that she was harassed and unfairly disciplined because of her race and that she was told, when her 2011 employment ended, that instead of being reinstated automatically as in the past, she would have to reapply the next year. Spaine interpreted this as termination. She filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981 alleging that she was harassed and eventually fired because she is African American. Months after filing that complaint, Spaine filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. Spaine was represented by counsel in the discrimination suit, but was without a lawyer in the bankruptcy case. On a schedule of personal property, Spaine was required to list contingent and unliquidated claims of all types. She listed nothing. In the separate financial statement, Spaine was required to list lawsuits to which she was party within the preceding year. She listed two eviction suits, but did not list her discrimination suit. A transcript of the creditors’ meeting shows that Spaine told the bankruptcy trustee about her discrimination lawsuit at the first opportunity after filing her incomplete schedules. Spaine also subsequently filed an affidavit indicating that she told the bankruptcy judge about the suit. The employer alleged that Spaine was trying to conceal the suit. Spaine successfully moved to reopen her bankruptcy. The discrimination suit was dismissed on estoppel grounds. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that material facts remained in dispute. View "Spaine v. Kane-Richards" on Justia Law

Gienapp worked at Harbor Crestnursing care facility. In January 2011 she told Chattic, its manager, that she needed leave to care for her daughter, who was being treated for thyroid cancer. Chattic granted leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1). While on leave, Gienapp submitted an FMLA form, leaving blank a question about the leave’s expected duration. Harbor Crest did not ask her to fill in the blank, nor did it pose written questions as the 12-week period progressed. A physician’s statement on the form said that the daughter’s recovery was uncertain, and that if she did recover she would require assistance at least through July 2011. Chattic inferred from this that Gienapp would not return by April 1, her leave’s outer limit, and hired a replacement. When Gienapp reported for work on March 29, Chattic told her that she no longer had a job. The district court entered summary judgment, ruling that Gienapp had forfeited her FMLA rights by not stating exactly how much leave she would take. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Gienapp could not give a firm date; Department of Labor regulations call her situation “unforeseeable” leave, governed by 29 C.F.R. 825.303, which does not require employees to tell employers how much leave they need. View "Gienapp v. Harbor Crest" on Justia Law

In 2011, the Michigan City Area Schools hired Nichols as a temporary, substitute janitor. Nichols worked at Joy Elementary School without incident. He then went to Springfield Elementary School as a replacement until a permanent janitor could be found for a recently retired janitor. He claims that employees there spoke to him in a mocking tone, tried to entrap him into taking a purse because he is African-American, and acted in a “bullying” manner. Other employees claimed that they felt threatened by Nichols’s strange behavior, which included taking pictures of one of them. Nichols was told that the custodial position had been filled with a permanent employee and that they would call him if they needed his services, but they never did. Nichols filed a pro se complaint asserting racial harassment and discrimination. The district court granted Michigan City summary judgment, finding that the complained-of conduct did not give rise to Title VII liability. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Nichols v. MI City Plant Planning Dep't" on Justia Law

In 2007 Huang, a systems and software engineer, had worked for CNA commercial insurance for eight years. In March, Huang was transferred to a new, four-member team. CNA required every member of Huang’s team to be on “pager duty” every fourth weekend, carrying a pager at home and being available to respond 24 hours a day throughout the assigned weekend. Huang repeatedly refused pager duty, citing family obligations, even after his supervisor and human resources reminded him that he could be fired for refusing. Huang offered to work from the office on Sundays in exchange for having Mondays off but refused pager duty. Around this time, Huang’s supervisor stated, for reasons unrelated to pager duty, that Huang was “pissing [him] off.” Huang emailed the human resources department to complain. Two years earlier, Huang had complained about another supervisor’s “favoritism.” Four months after Huang’s first refusal of pager duty, Huang’s supervisor and a human resources agent gave him one final opportunity to comply. When he refused, CNA discharged him. Consistent with CNA’s practice, it asked Huang for a list of his belongings so that someone could retrieve them from his desk. When Huang refused and demanded to return to his work station, human resources called security. Police escorted Huang out and arrested him. CNA did not press charges. After pursuing administrative remedies, Huang filed suit, claiming discrimination based on race and national origin (42 U.S.C. 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e–2000e-17) and that by firing him and having him arrested, CNA unlawfully retaliated for his earlier complaints. The district court granted CNA summary judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Huang v. Cont'l Cas. Co." on Justia Law