U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Third-party Standing In Employer Retaliation SuitJanuary 24, 2011In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers may not retaliate against third parties who are "within the zone of interests" to be protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). In Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP (No. 09-0291), Eric Thompson claimed he was fired because his fiancée filed an EEOC charge of sex discrimination. At the time of his fiancée's complaint and Mr. Thompson's termination, their relationship and engagement was common knowledge at North American Stainless (NAS). Slightly more than three weeks after the EEOC notified NAS of the complaint, NAS terminated Thompson's employment. Thompson sued alleging retaliatory discharge based on the protected activity of his fiancée, a co-worker; Thompson did not allege that he had engaged in protected activity himself. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision, but the case was then reheard en banc by the full Sixth Circuit. The court described the sole issue as whether section 704(a) of Title VII created a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who did not engage in protected activity. The en banc Sixth Circuit was very divided, with three separate dissents filed by six judges. The Supreme Court, however, had "little difficulty concluding that if the facts alleged by Thompson are true, then NAS's firing of Thompson violated Title VII." Affirming its prior decision in Burlington Northern v. White, the Court found that Title VII's anti-retaliation provision is sufficiently broad that "there is no textual basis for making an exception to it for third-party reprisals." With respect to whether Thompson has a cause of action, Justice Scalia expanded the reach of his own rule from Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, finding that Thompson was "within the zone of interests" sought to be protected by Title VII's "persons aggrieved" language. "Thompson is not an accidental victim of the retaliation - collateral damage, so to speak, of the employer's unlawful act," Scalia wrote. "To the contrary, injuring him was the employer's intended means of harming [his fiancée]. Hurting him was the unlawful act by which the employer punished her. In these circumstances, we think Thompson well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by (anti-retaliation law.) He is a person aggrieved with standing to sue." President Obama Signs Ledbetter Fair Pay ActJanuary 29, 2009On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first law passed by the new Congress and the law signed by the new President. The new law overturns the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), where the Court held by a 5-4 vote that the plaintiff did not file a timely charge within the statutory 180/300-day time limit. The law restores the previously widely accepted “paycheck accrual” principle that each new paycheck or post-retirement benefits check serves as a potentially unlawful employment practice for which an employee may timely file a charge within the 180/300 EEOC charge filing period. The Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision actually rewarded employers for actively hiding discriminatory pay practices. "If an employer succeeded in hiding an unlawful pay decision for 180 days," explained NELA Executive Director Terisa E. Chaw, "then the employer was free to continue the discrimination for the remainder of the employee's career. The restoration of the paycheck accrual rule will give victims of pay discrimination a fair opportunity to uncover and challenge unlawful pay decisions." In remarks at the signing ceremony for the Act, President Obama recognized Lilly Ledbetter’s courage and tenacity: "Now, Lilly could have accepted her lot and moved on. She could have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and the harassment that would inevitably come with speaking up for what she deserved. But instead, she decided that there was a principle at stake, something worth fighting for. So she set out on a journey that would take more than ten years, take her all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and lead to this day and this bill which will help others get the justice that she was denied." --President Barack Obama, in remarks at the signing ceremony for the Congress Revives the Americans With Disabilities ActSeptember 25, 2008The ADA Amendments Act (ADA-AA) of 2008 was signed into law in a White House ceremony on September 25, 2008, after identical bills were passed by the Senate (unanimously, on September 11th) and the House (by voice vote, on September 17th). The law's effective date is January 1, 2009. The ADA-AA was Congress's response to the Supreme Court's stringent construction of the terms "disability" and "significantly limits a major life activity" in ways that have drastically restricted the class of workers who can rely on the ADA to secure equal employment opportunities. For example, the ADA-AA will overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., which required that "mitigating measures" like medication be taken into account when evaluating whether an individual has a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA - a decision that contravened appellate decisions nationwide, EEOC regulations, and the ADA's legislative history. Specific language in the ADA-AA was the result of historic negotiations between the disability and civil rights communities, on the one hand, and the business community, on the other, working with the bill's chief proponents in Congress. The ADA-AA significantly changes the current law by:
Congress Enacts New Product Safety Whistleblower LawAugust 13, 2008On July 31, 2008, Congress enacted a new whistleblower law designed to promote consumer product safety. The new federal legislation specifically was enacted to protect public and private sector employees who disclose to their employers, a regulatory agency or a state Attorney General any perceived violation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The law also provides protection for employees who refuse to participate in violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act. Obviously, the purpose of this legislation was to protect employees who, in good faith, report potential safety problems connected with consumer products and to prevent retaliation against such an employee either in the private or public sector. Any employee who, in good faith, reports or discloses potential violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act, is protected from retaliation by this legislature. Under the new whistleblower legislation, an employee who believes that they have been unlawfully retaliated against for disclosing a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act must file with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) a complaint of retaliation within 180 days of becoming aware of the retaliatory action. Afterwards, on an administrative basis, OHSA will conduct an investigation. Either the employee or the employer can request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and can appeal an adverse decision to the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board. If the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision within 210 days after the filing of the complaint, an employee may remove the complaint to Federal Court and ask for a jury trial. Under the new Act’s provisions, in order to deter employers from retaliating against employees who, in good faith, report violations or potential violations of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Act, a prevailing employee who has been unlawfully retaliated against will be entitled, among other things, to reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages and litigation costs including reasonable attorney’s fees. Indiana Law for Breastfeeding Mothers Goes into EffectJuly 1, 2008Beginning July 1, 2008, a new Indiana law goes into effect that will protect mothers who wish to breastfeed in the workplace. The law will affect businesses with 25 or more employees, as well as the state and its political subdivisions. The new law requires employers to provide paid break time and a private location, other than a toilet stall, where an employee can pump breast milk in privacy. In addition, the employer must either provide a refrigerator (or other cold storage space), or allow the employee to provide their own portable cold storage device, for keeping milk that has been pumped until the end of the employee's work day. The law does not specify whether an employee who is denied her rights under the statue can take legal action against her employer, which will likely be the subject of litigation at some point in the near future. New Leave Rights Granted to Families of SoldiersJanuary 28, 2008For the first time since it was enacted in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) has been expanded to give some employees new leave rights. These amendments, providing leave for employees with family members in the armed forces, which was signed by President Bush on January 28, creates two new categories of FMLA leave for the relatives of military personnel. Effective immediately, a spouse, child, parent or next of kin of a member of the Armed Forces (including a member of the National Guard or Reserves) may take up to 26 work weeks of leave to care for the soldier if he or she is "undergoing medical treatment, recuperation, or therapy, is otherwise in outpatient status, or is otherwise on the temporary disability retired list, for a serious injury or illness." A "serious injury or illness" is defined as one that was incurred in the line of duty and may render the soldier medically unfit to perform the duties of office, grade, rank or rating. The new legislation also permits an employee to take FMLA leave for any "qualifying exigency" - as that term will be defined by the DOL in forthcoming regulations - arising out of the fact that the employee's spouse, child or parent is on active duty, or has been notified of an impending call or order to active duty, in the Armed Forces. Note that this provision of the statute is not effective until the DOL issues final regulations defining "qualifying exigency." Amy Ficklin DeBrota Named Indiana "Super Lawyer" for 2007February 22, 2007The DeBrota Law Firm LLC is proud to announce that Amy
Ficklin DeBrota has District Court Orders Distribution of Notice Regarding FLSA Lawsuit Against Residential CRF, Inc. and CRF First Choice, Inc. to Direct Care StaffDecember 22, 2006United States District Court Judge John D. Tinder granted collective action status and ordered the distribution of a notice regarding the case of Paula Crane and Linda Brewster et al. v. Residential CRF, Inc. and CRF First Choice, Inc. (“CRF”), Cause No. 1:05-cv-01883-JDT-TAB, to all individuals employed in Indiana by CRF as Direct Care Staff, either Levels I and/or II, who worked a 24/7 shift any time from December 20, 2002, until the present, excluding those individuals who only worked at facilities in Fort Wayne, Indiana (who are covered by a different lawsuit.) This notice will advise the recipients of the opportunity to join in the pending lawsuit, which seeks compensation for unpaid overtime for Direct Care Staff who worked a 24/7 shift. On January 2, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted a proposed notice for the Court’s approval. Amy Ficklin DeBrota is lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, Paula Crane and Linda Brewster. If you would like more information about this case, or if you are or were a Direct Care Staff employee of CRF, contact us via email or telephone at (317) 848-5555 or toll free at (888) 273-1326. December 22, 2006 Entry is available here and the Notice is available here. Global Settlement for Unpaid Overtime and Wage Claims
|
HOME |
The Indiana Supreme Court requires this statement for attorney websites: This is an advertisement. The information contained in the website is intended for general information purposes and may not apply to your situation. The information contained in this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and The DeBrota Law Firm LLC.
Copyright 2011, The DeBrota
Law Firm LLC.
715 E. 107th Street,
Indianapolis, IN 46280
888.273.1326 FAX AND TOLL FREE