Monday, December 22, 2014
- NLRB: The National Labor Relations Board Office of General Counsel has issued consolidated complaints against McDonald’s USA, LLC, and its franchisees alleging they are a joint employer
- First Circuit: In an en banc decision, the court held that the Massachusetts Department of Correction did not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment by refusing to provide sex reassignment surgery for an inmate with gender identity disorder
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer in ADA reasonable accommodation and constructive discharge claims brought by EEOC on behalf of former employee with diabetes, the court held that employee failed to participate in good faith in the interactive process by resigning rather than exploring employer’s offer to look for alternative accommodations after it informed employee that it could not accommodate her request to work a set 9-5 schedule
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for insurer in reach and apply claim following $100,000 judgment against insured selectman on slander and due process claims brought by former plumbing inspector, the court held that “employment-related practices” exclusion barred plumbing inspector’s recovery against insurer even if he was an independent contractor because, as the district court properly held, “although the ordinary person unschooled in the law or in insurance appreciates that there is a distinction between being an employee and an independent contractor, the ordinary person also appreciates that either status is a form of employment”
- US District Court ME: In denying, in part, motion to dismiss pro se complaint, the court held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment (illegal arrest and excessive force) where officer arrested plaintiff for refusing to sign summons for misusing 911 emergency call system but plaintiff alleged that repeated prior 911 calls were for actual emergencies; rejected claim that individuals may be liable under the ADA or the public accommodations provisions of the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”); and found sufficient ADA and MHRA allegations against police department because the arresting officer may have wrongly arrested plaintiff, a person with a disability, because he misperceived the effects of her disability as criminal activity
- Fifth Circuit: In reversing denial of attorney’s fees to plaintiff who prevailed on constitutional claim, the court held that court must award attorney’s fees under 42 USC § 1988 (despite discretionary language in § 1988) to prevailing plaintiff unless “special circumstances” are present, and limited nature and scope of injunctive relief and limited injury to rights play no role in the special-circumstances analysis, although they are relevant to the reasonableness of a fee request
- MHRC: January 26th Commission meeting Agenda posted
