Saturday, January 27, 2018
- First Circuit: In affirming Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation jury verdict for plaintiff, the court held, in part, that 300-day administrative complaint-filing deadline was met because plaintiff’s testimony at trial that “a good portion” of the harassment occurred in 2011 supported conclusion that at least some happened after February 3, 2011 (the 300-day window); non-workplace conduct was admissible; a plaintiff alleging “sex-plus” discrimination is not required to identify a comparable (meaning one that has the same “plus” factor, e.g., having children or being gay) member of the opposite sex who was not subjected to discrimination; a permissible “plus” factor in a “sex-plus” discrimination claim is sexual orientation (the court did not re-examine its 20-year-old holding that pure sexual orientation discrimination is not protected by Title VII); that the terms, “bitch,” “cunt,” and “Frangina” (plaintiff’s name is Franchina) are inherently genderspecific and their repeated and hostile use can reasonably be considered evidence of sexual harassment; there was sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment where, in addition to the use of the genderspecific terms, there was evidence that women were treated as less competent, men treated women better when they were perceived as willing to have sex with them, and a coworker asked if plaintiff wanted to have babies and if he could help her conceive; the jury instruction that plaintiff may establish gender discrimination “by proving that she was harassed because she is part of a subclass of women, in this case lesbians, if she also proves that this harassment was at least in part because of her sex or gender,” was an accurate description of the law, and the trial court did not err by refusing to add the superfluous language that, “[i]f you find that Ms. Franchina faced harassment solely because of her sexual orientation, then she has not proven that she faced harassment because of her gender”; that while there may have been reversible error on the jury’s front-pay award because the jury was not instructed to reduce the award to present value, the fact that the trial judge independently awarded front pay that was reduced to present value overcame the error; the $545,000 front-pay award was adequately supported by the record even without expert witness testimony on future earnings and the proper methodology for reducing the award to present day value
- US Supreme Court: The Court held that the tolling provision for dismissed supplemental jurisdiction state law claims, 28 U. S. C. §1367, stops the clock on the state statute of limitation while the federal lawsuit is pending plus 30 days after dismissal (not just for a 30-day grace period after dismissal)
- US Supreme Court: The Court held that qualified immunity shielded officers from Fourth Amendment false arrest claims where there was no controlling case holding that a bona fide belief of a right to enter defeats probable cause, that officers cannot infer a suspect’s guilty state of mind based on his conduct alone, or that officers must accept a suspect’s innocent explanation at face value
- Sixth Circuit: A district court must grant a motion for a new trial as to damages when a jury awards back pay to a Title VII plaintiff in an amount that is substantially less than the damages to which he is indisputably entitled
- First Circuit: Despite finding that public employee lacked a Due Process property interest in his job, the court nevertheless analyzed plaintiff’s Due Process “stigmatization claim” (and found plaintiff could not establish one), which involves a five-part test: The challenged statements must be false, they must have seriously damaged the employee’s reputation and standing in the community, they must have been intentionally publicized by the government employer, they must have been made in conjunction with the employee’s termination, and the government must have denied the employee’s post-termination request for a name-clearing hearing
- US District Court ME: In employment discrimination claim brought against State of Maine, the court granted State’s motion to substitute “male employee” for third party state employee’s actual name or his initials in all its Court filings, in light of the confidentiality of state personnel records required by 5 M.R.S. § 7070
- EEOC: Fiscal Year 2017 Enforcement And Litigation Data includes that retaliation was the most frequently filed charge (48%), followed by race (33%) and disability (31%); that it has reduced its charge workload by 16.2%; and that it achieved a successful outcome in 90.8 % of all the lawsuits it filed
- Maine Legislature: Public hearing scheduled for January 31st on LD 1768, An Act To Reduce Impairment on the Job and Improve Workplace Safety by Amending the Laws Governing Employment Practices Concerning Substance Use Testing
- HUD: $300,000 awarded to Pine Tree Legal Assistance as part of $37 million in grants to Fair Housing Initiatives Program