Plaintiff Tracy Joyner, a New York City Corrections Officer, filed suit against the City of New York for discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII after her supervisor made repeated sexual advances towards her. In Joyner v. City of New York, the District Court dismissed all federal claims, finding that, although Ms. Joyner was sexually harassed, the City is not liable because Ms. Joyner waited over a year before reporting the harassment.
A police officer’s claim, that his discharge was due to “anti-union animus,” in violation of his freedom of association, was recently dismissed by Colorado District Court in Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village. The Court found that the discharge was properly motivated by the officer’s misconduct, which violated a suspect’s constitutional rights and department policy, not by any anti-union animus.
The Colorado District Court refused to dismiss Hispanic, Deputy Sheriff Theresa Garcia’s retaliation, discrimination, and common law civil conspiracy claims in Garcia v. Arapahoe Cnty. Sheriff ’s Office, finding that these claims concerned genuine issues of material fact and could not be summarily dismissed.
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Listed below, are some articles we think are worth a look.
In Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Authority, the Sixth Circuit found that an employer’s order for an Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) to attend counseling for suspected depression may have been an impermissible “medical examination” in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The case was remanded to determine whether an ADA exception allowing “job related” medical examinations that are consistent with a “business necessity” applies.
A Missouri Police Officer who was passed over for a promotion and other positive job benefits, claimed the City was retaliating against him for reporting City official corruption in an internal investigation report. In Buehrle v. City of O’Fallon, Mo., the Eighth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment did not protect the Officer’s speech, which was made in the course of his official duties, and upheld a summary judgment dismissing his claims.
After being subjected to repeated urine-sample drug tests, a New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) Officer, Ada Perez, filed complaint. The MTA moved to dismiss. In Perez v. Metro. Transp. Auth., the District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Officer Perez’s complaint, reasoning that sufficient information existed for a jury to find in Officer Perez’s favor on her unreasonable search and seizure claim.
As suspected when the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2009, in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, reverse discrimination cases among police and firefighters are in the headlines, with several verdicts reached favoring the plaintiffs who have brought reverse discrimination cases against their employers.
Are you required to drug test in order to keep your job? In addition to drug testing, are you required to disclose what prescription medication you are taking and for what purpose? If you answered yes to any of these questions, a recent EEOC settlement reached, may be of interest to you.
Public employees are protected in the exercise of their First Amendment rights. This allows them to bring lawsuits when an employer’s retaliatiatory action is significant enough to constitute an “adverse employment action.” Not every employer action rises to that level.
