Sixth Circuit Reinforces ADEA Exception in Age Discrimination Suit

Last week, the Sixth Circuit held that Cleveland’s mandatory retirement ordinance for police officers was “not a subterfuge” meant to circumvent the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s requirements, and additionally that forced-out Cleveland police officers had no 14th Amendment claim. Sadie v. Cleveland, 6th Cir., No. 12-3142 (June 11, 2013).

In Sadie, five former Cleveland police officers brought suit under the ADEA and the 14th Amendment against the city of Cleveland and three city officials. Pursuant to a Cleveland local ordinance, the mandatory retirement age of police officers is set at 65. Up until 2010, however, no officer had been denied working beyond the age of 65 upon the passing of a medical exam. Yet, all officers age 65 and over were denied an extension in 2010 and were forced to turn in their badges. The officers argued that the city’s actions showed discriminatory animus and an express preference for younger workers.
Continue reading →

Voluntary Return To Work Case

The Court of Appeals for Hamilton County recently dismissed a plaintiff’s sex discrimination hostile work environment claim because the plaintiff had voluntarily returned to her job after quitting it.  Garrison v. Nippert, et al., Hamilton App. No. C-120384, 2013-Ohio-1965 (May 15, 2013).

Plaintiff Garrison alleged that immediately upon beginning her employment with Defendant Nippert, she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment — lewd sexual remarks and unwanted touching.  Ultimately reaching her “breaking point,” the plaintiff resigned.  However, weeks later, the plaintiff returned to work for Defendant Nippert because she was “desperate for money.”

For the full article and external source CLICK HERE

The Waldon Desicion

The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio recently ruled that two African-American plaintiffs stated legally sufficient disparate impact race discrimination claims based upon their terminations pursuant to the defendant School District’s implementation of statutorily-mandated criminal background checks.  Waldon v. Cincinnati Public Schools, No. 1:12-CV-00677 (S.D. Ohio, April 24, 2013).

For the full article click here.

U.S. v Nosal Guilty Verdict

The Digital Quandary Continues: Jury Convicts Executive Recruiter of Trade Secret Theft and Computer Fraud after Crucial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Trial.

Following a two-week trial before United States District Judge Edward M. Chen in the United States District Court of Northern California, a jury convicted David Nosal, an executive recruiter, of all charges in a six-count indictment including, inter alia, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) and trade secret theft. United States v. Nosal, No. CR-08-0237 EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). This case illustrates that despite the Ninth Circuit’s narrow reading of the CFAA, the appropriate scope and interpretation of the terms “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” remains unsettled.

For the full atricle click here

Court Holds Single Act Can Constitute Hostile Workplace

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held a single use of the “N-Word” by a supervisor may create a hostile work environment in Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, No. 11-7127 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

Ayissi-Etoh involved an African-American plaintiff, Placide Ayissi-Etoh, alleging his former employer, Fannie Mae, unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of federal anti-discrimination statute 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The former financial modeling team lead alleged several instances of discrimination in support of his claims. Ayissi-Etoh first pointed to a conversation he had with a supervisor regarding his salary. The plaintiff had recently been promoted along with 11 white co-workers. However, unlike his white peers, Ayissi-Etoh hadn’t received a corresponding pay raise. He inquired as to why this was, and his white supervisor replied “For a young black man smart like you, we are happy to have your expertise; I think I’m already paying you a lot of money.” Ayissi-Etoh also alleged that a different white supervisor yelled “Get out of my office [n-word]” at him during an unrelated heated exchange. The plaintiff responded by filing a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), at which point his employer reportedly gave him an ultimatum: drop the complaint or lose your job. Ayissi-Etoh was subsequently fired. Continue reading →

New Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification

United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced on March 7th the release of a revised Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification. Employers are required to use this form to verify the identity and employment eligibility of each individual they hire. The revisions to the I-9 include—for the most part—formatting changes, clarification of instructions, and the inclusion of additional data fields.

The revised I-9 was available for use beginning on March 8th, and employers must begin using the revised form immediately. However, the USCIS acknowledged the difficulty employers face in transitioning immediately to the new form and, accordingly, provided a sixty (60) day grace period to phase in use of the revised form. As such, employers have up to and including May 7, 2013 to update their business processes as necessary to accommodate the new form. After this date, employers who fail to use the revised I-9 may be subject to applicable penalties and fines.

Please click here to read the full article.