In Parrott v. Krasicky, the court denied a female police chief’s motion to dismiss a female police officer’s gender discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment.
A District of Columbia federal court dismissed a Capitol Police Officer’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims in Gordon v. U.S. Capitol Police, 20 WH Cases2d 453 (D.D.C. 2013), when she could provide no evidence that her employer denied her FMLA benefits (interference) and no evidence that she experienced and adverse employment action because of her use of her FMLA rights (retaliation). Despite an angry supervisor’s response to her request, the court found insufficient evidence of an “adverse action.”
In Part One of this two-part series, we identified the growing problems associated with the Internet and its connected social media. Chiefly, we identified the problem associated with the new opportunities presented to public safety employees to be "stupid" in what they say or do on a much grander and more public scale. As we discussed, previous discipline cases addressed how to discipline officers and firefighters for misplaced communications to a narrow audience, such as the gathering of coworkers off-duty at the neighborhood bar. Now the Internet allows employees to event to the world.
As we all know, "social media" are becoming prevalent. The ubiquity of the Internet and the rapid expansion of other social media such as Twitter and social media pages such as Facebook, create opportunities for communication of astonishing proportions. With that ability to communicate on a larger stage comes one very directly associated problem — the ability to say something incredibly stupid to a much greater number of people on that "larger stage." Or as one law enforcement blogger described the problem — police agencies now need to develop policies to address the problems associated with "when stupid strikes."
In Maraschiello v. City of Buffalo Police Dep’t, 117 FEP Cases 665 (2d Cir. 2013), the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that summary judgment was proper when a white Buffalo Police captain was denied a promotion after he refused to take the new aptitude test, which he claimed was implemented to give an unfair advantage to minorities. The court found that because the employer instituted the new aptitude test in a racially neutral manner, and the new test was designed to eliminate previous racial bias, the new test could not be considered to have an adverse racial impact.
In Lee v. District of Columbia, 27 AD Cases 895 (D.D.C. 2013), a District of Columbia Federal District Court found that a diabetic corrections worker had valid claim under the ADA when he was fired for falling asleep on the job, but had been denied a regular meal break and therefore could not manage the symptoms of the disease. These symptoms included dizziness, fainting or sudden fatigue resulting in falling asleep. The court found that because an employer accommodation was necessary for Lee to be able to perform the essential functions of the job, he was in fact disabled in the meaning of the ADA.
In Moore v. Maryland Dep’t of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 27 AD Cases 849 (D. Md. 2013), a Maryland Federal District Court found no claim could be made under the ADA when Arlene Moore, a corrections officer recovering from breast cancer, was terminated following an extended period of sick leave and there was no indication that she would be able to return to work. The Officer had 8 months of leave and her doctor indicated that she either “would” or “might” be able to return after an additional 7 months of leave. The court concluded that this prolonged leave especially in the absence of a certain return date was not a reasonable accommodation.
In Benavides v. Oklahoma City, 20 WH Cases 2d 331 (10th Cir. 2013), the Court upheld summary judgment on ADA and FMLA claims by a former detective when there was no retaliatory action, the employer suitably responded to alleged harassment, the paid administrative leave was standard for an employee being investigated for a crime, the paid leave did not adversely affect the plaintiff, and there was no showing that the City’s reason was pretextual. The court had little trouble in affirming the lower court’s granting of summary judgment as the plaintiff had utterly failed in indicating any violation of either the ADA or FMLA had occurred.
In Pubentz, an FBI linguist’s First Amendment retaliation claim failed because the linguist’s comments, made during a work presentation at the Chicago FBI Office, were not made as a citizen on a matter of public concern. Moreover, even if the speech was made as a citizen and on a matter of public concern, the court held the government’s interest would outweigh the linguist’s in this scenario.
In Hamner v. Ann Arundel Cnty., 117 FEP Cases 1672 (2013), the court permitted the claims of a county employee who had been transferred to the police department against the county for retaliatory failure to hire and a hostile work environment. She had been transferred, but the county claimed to only a provisional position.
