Saturday, March 29, 2025
- US Supreme Court: Seeing a lost “opportunity to revisit McDonnell Douglas and clarify what role—if any—it ought to play in Title VII litigation,” Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch dissented from denial of writ of certiorari in Hittle v. City of Stockton, California
- US Supreme Court: The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard governs when an employer attempts to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
- US District Court ME: Employee plausibly pled sufficient facts to equitably toll 300-day administrative filing deadline under Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) to start from when plaintiff learned that his prior position had not actually been eliminated, contrary to what he had been told at the time of termination
- First Circuit: Summary judgment for employer reversed on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) sexual orientation and gender discrimination claim where a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was the only female on employer’s executive team, she was the only team member to lose her job, after her termination the team consisted entirely of heterosexual males, employer had a continuing need for her services after her termination, she was effectively replaced by a heterosexual male who was hired with a different job title but essentially similar job responsibilities, and employer’s stated reason that she was terminated as part of a larger reorganization was untrue
- First Circuit: Summary judgment affirmed on ADEA claim because, in part, 77-year-old former grocery-store employee could not prove that employer did not believe the accuracy of its stated reason that it fired her for knowingly purchasing a beer for a minor in violation of company policy even if the employer was mistaken and the policy actually prohibited selling to a minor
- First Circuit: Bypassing matter of first impression of whether current or former employees of the federal Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) may bring claims under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”)–and what administrative exhaustion requirements apply–in light of the exclusivity provision in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, as modified by the allowance of claims under the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, the court held, in part, that summary judgment was properly granted for the TSA on the merits of her Rehab Act claim
- First Circuit: In reversing summary judgment for employer on ADA claim, the court held, in part, that former employee was not required to produce medical evidence that his knee injury was a protected disability where “a lay jury would have no difficulty grasping the connection between a knee injury and problems in conducting major life activities such as standing, walking, and bending”; the job duties former employee could not perform were not “essential” because employer did not universally require other employees to perform them; and request for a reduced-hour work schedule was not facially unreasonable in light of, in part, Congress including “part-time or modified work schedules” as examples of possible accommodations under the ADA
- First Circuit: In affirming summary judgment for employer on Title VII sex discrimination claim, the court held, in part, that scheduling interventional radiologist for more quality-of-care reviews than her male colleagues was not an actionable adverse employment action even under Muldrow v. City of St. Louis where plaintiff made “no effort to demonstrate with evidence how a scheduling discrepancy–which never culminated in more frequent reviews–caused any consequences to the terms or conditions of her employment that left her worse off”
- First Circuit: Summary judgment affirmed for employer on former employee’s Title VII claim that employer unlawfully failed to grant employee a religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccination requirement where employer met its burden of showing that granting an exemption would have caused it an undue hardship because it reasonably relied on the objective medical evidence available to it in concluding that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmitting COVID-19 regardless of whether it actually did
- First Circuit: Summary judgment for hospital affirmed on registered nurse’s Title VII claim arising out of hospital’s refusal to grant nurse religious exemption to its COVID-19 vaccine requirement where hospital met its undue hardship defense because (regardless of whether the vaccines actually worked) it “implemented its vaccine requirement based on the CDC’s recommendations, which describe vaccines as mitigating the effects and spread of COVID-19”
- First Circuit: The court announced the passing of Judge Bruce M. Selya and Judge Michael Boudin
- EEOC Press Release: Removing Gender Ideology and Restoring the EEOC’s Role of Protecting Women in the Workplace
- EEOC Press Release: EEOC Publishes Annual Performance and General Counsel Reports for Fiscal Year 2024
