May 3, 2013 By

Flatulence is No Joke: EMT Demoted for Joke-Farting, Loses Discrimination and Retaliation Claims in Federal Court

By Kate Acheson and Jim Cline

In Cain v. Montgomery County, the Federal Court in Tennessee dismissed the discrimination and retaliation claims of a lieutenant Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) who was demoted for passing gas loudly.  A Montgomery County Emergency Medical Services employee, Rita Cain, was hired on as an EMT in 1992 and was later promoted her to the supervisory position of lieutenant EMT in 1996.  On March 29, 2010, Cain was present during an EMT’s call to dispatch about a patient’s transport.  During that incident, Cain was upset that dispatch had not notified EMS of the transport and stated: “You all don’t tell me shit.” Then, Cain passed gas loudly enough for the dispatcher to hear over the telephone.  When the dispatcher complained, Cain dismissed her flatulence as a joke.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Legal Rights
May 3, 2013 By

Social Security Administration Reprimands Flatulent Federal Worker: Uncontrolled Odiferous Emissions Deemed “Unbecoming a Federal Employee”

By Jim Cline and Mitchel Riese

 A recent news story that garnered national attention concerned the discipline of a Social Security employee by the Social Security Administration, who reprimanded the employee for excessive workplace flatulence.  The reprimand was delivered to the employee in a five-page letter that included a log of representative dates and times when the employee was recorded, “releasing the awful and unpleasant odor” in his Baltimore office. After the employee filed a grievance over the reprimand, the Social Security Administration withdrew it.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Legal Rights
April 3, 2013 By

Female Officer Told That Her Husband Was Not “Taking Care of Her in Bed” Presents Valid Sexual Harassment Claim but Retaliatory Discharge Claim Dismissed

By Mitchel Wilson

The Federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Desarduoin v. City of Rochester, 117 FEP Cases 778 (2d Cir. 2013) reestablished a fired female police security officer’s sexual harassment/discrimination claim against the City of Rochester, New York under Title VII, while affirming the dismissal of her retaliation and state law claims.  The court concluded the lower court erred in granting summary judgment on the employee’s gender discrimination claim when she alleged her supervisor made unsolicited sexual advances from May to July of 2007, but correctly dismissed her retaliation and state law claims. The employer was able to defeat her retaliation claim when it showed that it acted for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, when it fired her for secretly recording fellow officers, a felony and violation of department policy.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination
March 29, 2013 By

Forced Retirement of Police Officer for Anxiety Disorder Improper

By David E. Worley

In Keseker v. Marin Community College District (27 AD Cases 421 (N.D. Cal. 2012)), the California Federal District Court refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former police officer who claimed he was unfairly forced to retire because of an anxiety disorder that made him not fit for duty.  He claimed the employer violated the ADA in failing to provide him with reasonable accommodations, failing to engage in the interactive process, wrongful termination, and discriminating against him based on his disability.  [Read more...]

Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Discrimination
February 19, 2013 By

9th Circuit Finds Constitutional Property Interest in Arbitration Reinstatement Order

By David E. Worley

In Phillips v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office (194 LRRM 2389 (9th Cir. 2012)), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Corrections Officer  has a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment once a final and binding reinstatement order has been issued.  The Ninth Circuit stated that the property interest extends beyond the employment itself to the reinstatement of employment as well.  The Marion County Sheriff’s Association (in Salem, Oregon), was successful in having a discharged deputy ordered reinstated in a “final and binding” arbitration decision.  The County refused to abide by the arbitration decision, making the argument that public policy did not approve of the mistreatment of inmates, the misconduct the plaintiff was accused of.    [Read more...]

Filed Under: Constitutional Rights, Legal Rights
February 15, 2013 By

Failure to Accommodate Detention Worker Claim Dismissed When Physical Limitation Disabled Worker from Performing Physical Restraint

By David E. Worley

In Wardia v. Justice & Pub. Safety Cabinet Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, (27 AD Case 385 (6th Cir. 2013), the  Sixth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals granted summary judgment on a failure to accommodate claim of a former juvenile detention worker who was physically unable to perform a restraint on an inmate.  Because the ability to physically restrain, while rarely used, is an essential function of the job, the plaintiff’s request to have other more physically capable employees perform restrains, the court ruled, was unreasonable.  Further, the plaintiff’s request to be put on a light duty monitoring position, the court concluded, was unreasonable, as that position is rotating and temporary, and the ADA does not require converting a temporary position to a permanent one for the sake of accommodating a disability.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Discrimination
February 12, 2013 By

Court Finds School Liaison Officer Cannot Sustain Race Discrimination Lawsuit after Termination for Admitted Sexual Relationship with Former Student

By David E. Worley

In Hall v. Village of Flossmoor Police Department (116 FEP Cases 1209), an Illinois Federal Court threw out the lawsuit of a School Liaison officer who was fired after an admitted sexual relationship with an 18 year-old, recently graduated student. The officer ultimately admitted that it occurred and had included sex in the Department vehicle. The court determined his claim that his race played a role in the termination could not survive summary judgment when the evidence of misconduct was so apparent. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Race Discrimination
February 8, 2013 By

“No Harm, No Foul” is not a Defense for a Failure to Promote Claim When Corrective Action Took Place After the Lawsuit was Filed, Court Holds.

By David Worley

In Kosek v. Luzerne County (116 FEP Cases 1244 (M.D. Pa. 2012)), the court denied the County’s summary judgment motion concerning a discrimination lawsuit brought by a Corrections Counselor. The Officer claimed that the  County had failed to promote the most qualified candidate for discriminatory reasons, and, although later corrected its action, did so only after the Correction Counselor had filed a grievance and separate lawsuit.  

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Legal Rights
January 29, 2013 By

White Female Police Officer’s Race and Gender Discrimination Claim Survives Summary Judgment When Black Mayor Wants to Hire “His People”

By David Worley

In Zagaja v. Village of Freeport (116 FEP Cases 1227), the plaintiff’s claims of race and gender discrimination, survived summary judgment when she pleaded sufficient facts to indicate that the Mayor’s hiring of minority and male candidates (and demotion of herself), was based on race, and any other reasons were pretextual. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Discrimination, Gender/Pregnancy Discrimination, Race Discrimination
January 18, 2013 By

Interference and Retaliation Claims Under FMLA Survive Based on Proximity between Officer Request for Leave and Termination

By David Worley

In Dove v. Community Education Centers, a Pennsylvania federal district court held that a terminated corrections officer could proceed with his retaliation claim, when he was terminated after he had requested leave for his symptoms of depression.  The court also upheld an interference claim against the employer for not informing him of his available FMLA leave.  While the court was not deciding the merits of the claims, it was deciding, upon a summary judgment motion, whether the claims were sufficient to proceed to a trial. [Read more...]

Filed Under: Disability Discrimination, Discrimination
« Older Posts