The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC & Outten & Golden LLP File Sex Discrimination Class Action Against Connecticut Department of Correction

On January 14, 2015, Denisha Davis filed a sex discrimination class action complaint in the District of Connecticut against the Connecticut Department of Correction. 

The lawsuit follows earlier litigation in Easterling v. Connecticut Department of Correction, in which a federal court held in 2011 that the state fitness test violated Title VII and found for the job applicant plaintiffs.  The new lawsuit alleges that the state’s revised physical fitness test – which modified only one aspect of the test from a 1.5-mile run to a 300-meter dash – continued to have an adverse impact on women.

 The press release is available here.

Are Women Penalized for Being the First to Volunteer in the Workplace?

This very interesting NY Times opinion piece (and the studies is cites) is a must read for human resources personnel and members of management involved in making promotion decisions.

A short overview of the argument:

"Women help more but benefit less from it. In keeping with deeply held gender stereotypes, we expect men to be ambitious and results-oriented, and women to be nurturing and communal. When a man offers to help, we shower him with praise and rewards. But when a woman helps, we feel less indebted. She’s communal, right? She wants to be a team player. The reverse is also true. When a woman declines to help a colleague, people like her less and her career suffers. But when a man says no, he faces no backlash. A man who doesn’t help is 'busy'; a woman is 'selfish.'" (link)

a.png

New York Times: Gender Bias Case Against Sterling Jewelers Can Proceed

Available here and excerpted below:

"An arbitrator overseeing a gender discrimination case against Sterling Jewelers, parent of 12 chains in the United States including Kay Jewelers, has certified a class of thousands of women to proceed to trial.
Women in the class may pursue a claim challenging Sterling’s pay and promotion practices, the arbitrator, Kathleen A. Roberts, a retired United States magistrate judge at the dispute resolution company JAMS, said in a ruling Monday night." (link)

The Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and Liddle & Robinson L.L.P. File Race Discrimination Claim Against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC (d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co.) and Joshua Berkowitz

On December 10, 2011, Michael S. Douglas, Jr. filed a race discrimination complaint in Manhattan Supreme Court against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC  (d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co.) and co-owner Joshua Berkowitz.  The complaint alleges that Berkowitz racially harassed former Bleecker Kitchen & Co. restaurant manager Douglas during his employment with Bleecker.  The complaint further alleges that Berkowitz was not aware that Douglas, who is Filipino and African-American, was black, when Berkowitz, using coded words, counseled Mr. Douglas against hiring black servers.  Mr. Douglas is represented by Cyrus E. Dugger of the Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and Michael Grenert of Liddle & Robinson L.L.P.

Civil Rights for Intelligent Animals . . . ?

Maybe so said attorney Steven Wise to a New York appellate court:

"A state appeals court will decide in coming weeks whether chimpanzees are entitled to "legal personhood" in a case that could lead to expanded rights for animals such as gorillas, elephants and dolphins, according to the lawyer advocating for a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy.

Attorney Steven Wise argued before a five-member mid-level appeals court Wednesday on behalf of Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County. A trial-level judge has refused a request by Wise and his Nonhuman Rights Project to have Tommy released to join other chimps at a Florida sanctuary that mimics their natural habitat.
Wise argues that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He's also seeking the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states. If he succeeds, he said he will seek personhood for other species with human qualities, which he defines as self-determination and autonomy." (link)

Perhaps intelligent animals should have some basic rights above those we give to far less intelligent animals like cows - actually probably so - but do intelligent animals already inherently have those rights absent a statute to that effect?

Not sure I'm convinced - but it's an intriguing non-frivolous question.

Aunt Jemima No Longer Smiling

The heirs of Anna S. Harrington, the woman portrayed as Aunt Jemima on Aunt Jemima pancakes products for approximately 80 years, have filed a class action alleging Quaker Oates intentionally withheld royalties associated with the use of her likeness:

"In their suit, D.W. Hunter and Larnell Evans say Quaker Oats representatives discovered their great-grandmother, Anna S. Harrington, making pancakes at the New York State Fair in 1935.
Harrington portrayed the character in commercials and other public appearances for 15 years.
The suit says Quaker Oats used Harrington's pancake recipes and trademarked her likeness as the character 'Aunt Jemima' in 1937.
The great-grandsons say Quaker Oats exploited Harrington with the intent of not paying royalties toward her estate after her death in 1955. They claim the companies conspired not to acknowledge Harrington's status as an employee of Quaker Oats by saying they could not find any employment records or images of her. But they say, Quaker Oats had her image deposited with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Harrington's family, according to the complaint, filed the suit after it was able to obtain a death certificate that listed Quaker Oats as Harrington's employer." (link).

The suit also alleges that Quaker Oates wrongfully took Harrington's pancake recipes and racially discriminated against her and her family.  Plaintiffs seek $2 billion in damages.

FMLA Joint Employer Doctrine May Cover Unaware Smaller Employers

A cautionary tale to smaller employers concerning FMLA coverage and compliance:

"On September 19, 2014, the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employee on the issue of FMLA coverage under the joint-employer doctrine.  Cuff v. Trans States Holdings, Inc., No. 13-1241 (7th Cir., 9-19-2014).  The Family and Medical Leave Act applies only to an employer that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee's work station.  Cuff was on the payroll of Trans States, which only had 33 employees.  However, Department of Labor Regulation 29 C.F.R. 825.106(a) provides that workers are covered by the FMLA when they are jointly employed by multiple firms that collectively employ 50 or more workers.  In addition, DOL Regulation 29 C.F.R. 825.104(c) provides that 2 or more firms may be treated as a single employer when they operate a joint business.  The joint-employer doctrine applies when one person is employed jointly by two firms that otherwise have distinct labor forces.
* * *
The 7th Circuit held that Cuff was covered by the FMLA because he was jointly employed by Trans States and GoJet, who collectively employ 50 or more workers."  (link)

Massachusetts Passes Domestic Violence Leave Law for Employees

As the issue of domestic violence is brought to the forefront of national dialogue Massachusetts has acted:

"In the wake of the Ray and Janay Rice incident sweeping the news across the country, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has enacted emergency legislation entitled “An Act relative to domestic violence.”  The new law is effective immediately and mandates that all employers with 50 or more employees permit an employee to take up to 15 days of leave from work in any 12-month period if the employee, or a family member (defined below) of the employee, is a victim of abusive behavior and the employee is using the leave from work to:
  • Seek or obtain medical attention, counseling, victim services or legal assistance; secure housing; obtain a protective order from a court; appear in court or before a grand jury; meet with a district attorney or other law enforcement official; attend child custody proceedings; or address other issues directly related to the abusive behavior against the employee or family member of the employee; and
  • The employee is not the perpetrator of the abusive behavior against such employee’s family member."  (link)