Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in the matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) v. Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Sterling Jewelers”), that the District Court erred by considering the sufficiency of the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation instead of simply considering whether an investigation occurred.
‘Tis the season when the trees start to turn golden and employee benefits head towards open enrollment. So as employees start cruising through benefits plans, what should they be thinking about wellness programs?
As the clock ticked down on the EEOC’s fiscal year (which ended on September 30), we are struck once again by the eerily consistent trend in the agency’s federal court filing trends.
This case may have some problems, but it’s a good illustration of why employers need to be careful, post-Young v. UPS.
Time Warner-EEOC Settlement Provides a Cautionary Tale to Employers Who Provide Mothers More Parental Leave Than Fathers
I recently read in the NY Times that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a charge with Time Warner, Inc., the parent company of CNN and Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. where a former employee alleged that Time Warner’s parental leave policy discriminated against him as a biological father.
In July, I posted about a discovery dispute in the transgender lawsuit going on in the Detroit area.
Pre-offer drug tests to determine the use of illegal drugs did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act’s prohibition on pre-offer medical inquiries, a federal court in Pennsylvania held on September 15, 2015.
English-only rules are not as common as they once were, but many employers still require employees to speak English only in the workplace.
In an order recently issued in EEOC v J.R. Baker Farms, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:14-CV-136 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 9, 2015), Senior Judge Hugh Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia compelled the EEOC to produce in discovery anecdotal claims information for each known “class member” in a pattern or practice lawsuit (while not a class action governed by Rule 23, allegedly injured parties for whom the EEOC sues in a pattern or practice case are often referred to as “class members,” as in this order by Judge Lawson).