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.
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.
