In Dubiak v. S. Abington Twp., the Court denied South Abington Township’s Motion to dismiss a police officer’s complaint that he was discriminated against in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when he was not rehired following active duty with the Marine Corps.
In Anderson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, the Ninth Circuit reversed the granting of summary judgment to the San Francisco County on claims of sex discrimination, in its jail staffing policies. The court held that the County was unable to meet its burden in demonstrating that it was entitled to a “bona fide occupational qualification” (BFOQ) defense for a policy that excluded male corrections deputies from supervising female inmates.
In Gethers v. Harrison, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina held that a sheriff’s office did not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of gender when it demoted a female detention officer. The female officer refused to leave the bathroom area while a male inmate was showering. Two other male officers were present, and the inmate was no longer agitated or presenting any sort of threat. Consequently, the female officer’s presence was determined unnecessary and inappropriate. During the course of the investigation following the demotion, the Sheriff concluded that Gethers was not truthful and subsequently terminated her on that basis.
In Morshed v County of Lake, the Court held that years of slurs and constant denigration were enough to allow Police Officer Morshed to pursue a national origin harassment claim even though he lost no pay or benefits.
Jeffrey Heffernan, a police officer in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, sued the City for retaliation after he was demoted from Detective to Patrol Officer for engaging in protected speech. Heffernan was demoted the day after other police officers observed him meeting with a Mayoral Candidate’s Campaign Manager to pick up a campaign lawn sign for his ill mother while he was off duty. However, in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, a Federal District Court dismissed Heffernan’s claims, finding that an employee cannot bring a first amendment retaliation claim based on an Employer’s mistaken perception that the Employee is engaging in political speech—there must be some evidence that the individual actually engaged in the speech for which they are retaliated against.
Anthony Rorrer, a firefighter for the City of Stow, Ohio, alleged the City violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by firing him after he completely lost vision in one eye in a non-work related accident. In Rorrer v. City of Stow, a Federal Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s grant of Summary Judgment to the City, allowing Rorrer’s ADA claims against the City to proceed.
As had been widely anticipated, the United States Supreme Court in Lane v. Franks overturned a ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that had found that a Georgia community college administrator was unprotected by the first amendment when he was retaliated against following his sworn court testimony.
In a decision on a case that had presented significant financial and operational important to Public Employee Unions, the United States Supreme Court held this Monday in Harris v Quinn that the Illinois law, as applied to a special class of home health care workers, unconstitutionally imposed a “fair share” dues payment requirement.
In Ellis v. Houston, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in part, in favor of five African-American Correctional Officers who brought claims against five of their Supervisors for race-based harassment and retaliation.
A case currently pending before the US Supreme Court may challenge the Court’s previous holdings that workplace speech that touches on a public employee’s “job duties falls outside the protection of the First Amendment. The Lane v. Franks involved an Alabama Community College employee who was terminated in retaliation for his subpoenaed testimony. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because his testimony was in furtherance of his actual job duties, it did not fall under the “job duties” exception to the First Amendment enunciated by the Supreme Court in 2006 in Garcetti v. Calleballos.
