The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that internal grievances do not constitute statements of “public concern,” which are entitled to First Amendment protection. In Brooks v. Arthur, two Virginia corrections officers sued the Virginia State Corrections Department supervisors under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for unlawful termination in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech.
In Hanford Exec. Mgmt. Employees Ass’n v. City of Hanford the court held that an employee Association could pursue its claims that its members faced unlawful discrimination in retaliation for a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has ruled that an Association’s retaliation claim stated a potential basis for finding several constitutional violations and rejected the City’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim.”
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Here are some other articles we think are worth a look.
In Duncan v. Dakota County, No. 11-2467, August 3, 2012 (8th Cir. 2012), Toni Duncan worked as a correctional officer for Duncan County, NE, under the supervision of Chief Deputy Sheriff Rodney Herron. After leaving the job, she sued the County and Mr. Herron officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. She claimed that through the actions of Mr. Herron, the county had, in the forms of sexually harassing and constructively discharging her, denied her equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As open-enrollment season for health insurance approaches, employees may see (if they have not already) options for reducing their health insurance costs by voluntarily enrolling in an employer wellness program. Alternatively, your union may have even entered into an agreement with your employer that requires you to participate in an employer wellness program, in order to maintain your health insurance. Billed as your opportunity to save money, participation in employer wellness programs are, in reality, merely fee-shifting endeavors that penalize employees with higher deductibles, higher co-pays, or fees for failure to participate. Unfortunately, trying to sort out what your rights are with respect to these wellness programs under the ADA, HIPAA and GINA ** (“Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) is a complicated undertaking.
A recent decision from U.S. l District Court in Arizona denied the City of Prescott, Arizona’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit by a former firefighter, who alleged that he had been coerced into retiring by being threatened with criminal charges for having traded shifts. In Vicente v. City of Prescott, AZ, 33 IER Cases 1306 (D. Ariz. 2012), Vicente, who had been a firefighter for almost 20 years and a Captain for 10, was vice president of the firefighters union.
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Here’s some other articles we think are worth a look.
In State of Ariz. v. City of Cottonwood, 115 FEP Cases 998, No. CV-11-2-1576-PHX-GMS, July 20, 2012, D. Az., sometime around 2000, as the result of agreements with the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) and other law enforcement agencies in Arizona, Fitness Intervention Technologies (FIT) conducted a study for the purpose of developing a physical fitness test for law enforcement officers.
In the ever-evolving legal environment regarding use of social media in and outside the workplace, a new case before the 4th Circuit is getting quite a bit of attention. In Bland v. Roberts, a deputy sheriff (along with five others) went on his Facebook page and, like millions of others every day, clicked the “like” button on a page he was viewing. The page happened to be a political page for a candidate running against his boss, the Sheriff of Hampton, VA. Once his boss was re-elected, Deputy Carter, along with Bland, et. all were terminated. The employer alleged that the employees were terminated for poor work performance and their support of the opposing candidate had disrupted the workplace.
City of Houston v. Proler, No. 14-10-00971-CV, Texas Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District, May 31, 2012 , dur g March 2006, a capta a fire suppression unit the Houston Fire Department (HFD) responded, along with firefighters that he supervised, to a build g fire. While at the scene of the fire, the capta failed to follow orders and was found stand g a smoke-filled room. Medics at the scene determ ed that his blood pressure was low. Subsequently, at the direction of the HFD, he sought medical treatment.
