Tuesday, September 16, 2014
- EEOC: New guidance issued, “Common Errors by Federal Agencies in Dismissing Complaints of Discrimination on Procedural Grounds,” discussing the most common dismissal mistakes made by federal agencies initially processing equal employment opportunity complaints brought by federal employees and applicants, which lead to a 1/3 reversal rate by the EEOC on appeal
- US Dept of Labor: Proposed rule would prohibit federal contractors from discharging or discriminating in any other way against employees or applicants who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own compensation or the compensation of another employee or applicant
- US District Court ME: The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment on punitive damages claim despite fact that First Amendment forbids award of punitive damages for words spoken without actual malice on matters of public concern, where there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that defendant deliberately ignored evidence that called into question his published statements and that he relied on highly questionable sources
- First Circuit: The court granted summary judgment on inmates’ Eighth and Fourth Amendments, ADA, and Rehab Act claims arising out of prison’s practice of having inmates receive HIV medication in single doses at dispensing window rather than providing them with extended doses to be used in their cells, finding that inmates did not show a serious risk of serious harm under the Eighth Amendment; that, assuming the Fourth Amendment guaranteed that prisoners have at least a limited constitutional right against gratuitous disclosures of medical information, and that policy here resulted in inmates’ inadvertent and sporadic disclosure of their HIV status to other inmates while waiting in line at the window, the policy was reasonable based on its cost savings; and inmates did not establish ADA or Rehab Act claim because policy was motivated by cost savings and not HIV status
- HUD: Settlement announced in lending discrimination case alleging discrimination based on race and national origin (Native American), where bank denied loan because property was located on a Native American reservation (property was held in “fee simple,” meaning that the couple held the title to the property, without restriction, in the same way that land is generally held throughout the United States)
