Tuesday, March 26, 2019
- Eleventh Circuit: En banc decision, in “an effort to clean up, and to clarify once and for all the proper standard for comparator evidence in intentional-discrimination cases,” held that “the proper test for evaluating comparator evidence is neither plain-old ‘same or similar’ nor ‘nearly identical,’ as our past cases have discordantly suggested. Nor is it the Seventh Circuit’s so-long-as-the-comparison-isn’t-useless test. Rather, we conclude that a plaintiff asserting an intentional-discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas must demonstrate that she and her proffered comparators were ‘similarly situated in all material respects.'”
- US District Court ME: In denying summary judgment on various employment discrimination claims, the court held that there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff’s retirement was a “constructive discharge” because defendant failed to accommodate her no-overtime work restriction; eight-day delay in providing accommodation after specialist indicated it was necessary could amount to a failure to provide it or a failure to engage in good faith in the interactive process; and timing of plaintiff representing (as a shop steward) a coworker in a disability discrimination claim supported a finding that refusing plaintiff’s accommodation request was unlawful retaliation
- US District Court ME: In denying summary judgment on retaliation and sexual harassment claims, the court found sufficient evidence of “constructive discharge” where plaintiff resigned because her fellow corrections officers “had essentially encouraged inmates to view [her] as a ‘rat,’ which in turn created a work environment in which a reasonable corrections officer would fear for his or her personal safety”; sufficient evidence that the constructive discharge resulted from unlawful retaliation, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and sexual harassment, the latter including a corrections officer making a lewd comment to plaintiff while they were replacing a shower curtain, one referring to himself as a “sexy piece of chocolate,” and one calling plaintiff a “whiny bitch” just a few weeks later
- US District Court ME: Summary judgement denied, in part, on “sex plus” discrimination claim by female delivery driver with two kids who was denied under eight-hour shifts due to “efficiency gains” from full-time schedules where three men from another facility were allowed to work shorter shifts (defendant argued the facility was an inapt comparator because it was “bigger, busier, and had different business needs”); and reduction of plaintiff’s schedule without two weeks after OSHA complaint supported Whistleblower claim
- MHRC: The Maine Human Rights Commission has a new website
