April 27, 2012

EEOC Settles Severe Obesity Case Under the ADA Lawsuit

A nonprofit organization has agreed to pay a severely obese woman $125,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The nonprofit fired the woman, and the EEOC alleged that she was fired because of her severe obesity although she could perform her job.  The EEOC asserted that severe obesity was a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In addition to the financial payment, as part of the settlement, the nonprofit organization will be required will provide annual training on federal disability law to all human resources personnel and corporate directors of its organization.   The nonprofit organization also will report to the EEOC for three years on all complaints of disability discrimination and all denials of a request for reasonable accommodation of a disability.

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination

Tagged as , , , ,

February 25, 2012

Fourth Circuit Holds That Two Comments Are Not So Offensive That They Altered Conditions of Employment

An African-American employee contended that one of her supervisors, also African-American, made two comments that constituted retaliatory racial harassment.  The first alleged comment, “you have good hair,” involved a discussion about local hairdressers.  (Chris Rock must be smiling somewhere.). The second alleged comment, in the context of a staff meeting, was that “some of us have more melanin in our skin that others.”. Allegations of racism and, then, retaliation followed.  After the employee lost in the District Court and appealed, the United States Court of Appeals held that “no reasonable person could have believed that the two comments were so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the [employee's] employment . . . .”

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Racial Harassment

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 11, 2012

ADA Claim for Inability to Work Overtime and Rotating Shifts Rejected

Plaintiff claimed, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), that his inability to work more than eight hours per day and rotate day/night shifts as a result of physical impairments rendered him “disabled” under the ADA. Plaintiff also claimed, as an additional violation of the ADA, that his employer did not “reasonably accommodate” his disability.  The District Court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an inability to work overtime did not constitute a ”substantial” limitation on a major life activity under the ADA and that the record contained no evidence indicating that plaintiff’s inability to work overtime “significantly restricted” his ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment.

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 1, 2012

Court of Appeals of Maryland Concludes That Discrimination Because of Handicap Under Maryland Law Should Not Be Construed

The plaintiff in a case sued under the Howard County Code and Maryland state law, alleging that she was allegedly discriminated against because of her disability (allergy to latex).  The Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that the term “handicap,” as used in the Maryland statutory provisions, should not be construed strictly as certain federal cases had construed the term “disability” as set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient for the jury’s finding that the plaintiff’s latex allergy “was an impairment which substantially limited her major life activities of socialization and parenting,” i.e., a “handicap” under Maryland law.

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination, Handicap

Tagged as , , , ,

February 1, 2012

Employment Case Against Domino’s Pizza Not Dismissed in 30 Minutes or Les

Domino’s Pizza allegedly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it, using external consumer reporting agencies, conducted background checks on all of its job applicants  as part of its “standard screening process” and on existing employees “from time-to-time.”    The United States District Court for the District of Maryland rebuffed the attempt by Domino’s to have the case dismissed in 30 minutes or less.  The District Court wrote a detailed opinion and concluded, among other items, that the allegations sufficiently alleged willfulness on Domino’s part.   In this regard, the plaintiffs alleged that Domino’s systematically failed to provide employees with copies of background checks before taking adverse action (termination of employment) against them.

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Background Checks

Tagged as , , , , , ,

February 1, 2012

Employee Complaint About Overtime Lodged Within Company May Trigger FLSA Antiretaliation Provision

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently concluded, in an issue of first impression in the circuit, that an employee’s complaint about overtime lodged within her company (as distinguished from a complaint filed with a court or with a governmental agency) could trigger the protection of the antiretaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Announcements

Tagged as , , , ,

January 24, 2012

United States Has Not Consented to Being Sued in State Court Under Title VII

The United States Court of Appeals has concluded (2-1) that the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security, a federal agency, did not consent to be sued in state court in a Title VII discrimination action.  The majority opinion reached its conclusion despite the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S.  820 (1990), that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over Title VII actions.  Stay tuned.  If not now, the Supreme Court may have to weigh in on this issue.

For more information or for a consultation regarding your legal issues, please contact McCollum & Associates, LLC, at (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Discrimination

October 27, 2011

Continuing Violation Doctrine

A recent case from the Court of Appeals of Maryland discussed the
“continuing violation doctrine” exception to the requirement that a
complaint of sexual harassment be filed within the period of the statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations basically states that a complaint regarding sexual harassment cannot be maintained in court if not filed within the period that Maryland law prescribes.  The recent case from the Court of Appeals addressed a situation in which the primary sexual harassment occurred more than two years before the plaintiff filed her complaint in court.

The Court of Appeals stated that the “continuing violation doctrine” exception would allow the plaintiff to maintain her court action because retaliatory action that she alleged had been taken against her had occurred within the period of the statute of limitations.

For more information on continuing violation doctrine, contact James McCollum at   (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

1 Comment

Filed under Harassment, Sexual Harassment, Statute of Limitations

Tagged as , , , , ,

July 14, 2011

Texting While Driving on the Job

State and federal authorities, concerned over the safety of our roads, have begun to regulate driving habits. Sometimes the regulations and statutes broadly prohibit inattentive driving, which could cover anything from eating while driving or applying make up while driving. In other instances, the regulations refer specifically to the use of cell phones while driving including the most obvious danger — texting while driving. The federal government has focused on this conduct when engaged in by public employees in private or government vehicles and some states have focused on the age of the driver, prohibiting the youngest drivers from using any kind of cell phone while driving.

For employers, the obvious risk is exposure to liability for harm caused by an employee who is driving while distracted. Both Maryland and the District of Columbia have statutes regulating cell phone use while driving. Employers should ensure that their policy handbooks contain clear statements defining the permissible uses of cell phone use while driving on company business. For more information on personnel policy handbooks, contact James McCollum at   (301) 864-6070 or jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Personnel Policy

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

June 22, 2011

Direct Depositing Wages

While the general rule in Maryland for private employers is that with voluntary employee authorization, an employer may direct deposit wages. Though free to encourage participation in this system, an employer may currently not require it. The rule for counties and municipal employers is set to change effective October 1, 2011. the Maryland General Assembly approved House Bill 233, on May 10, 2011, which will permit county and municipal employers to implement direct deposit across the board and, with few exceptions, employers will be able to require employees to accept direct deposit. For more information on the status of the Bill, contact James McCollum at jmccollum@jmlaw.net.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Benefits, Wages

Tagged as , , , ,