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.
In M.O.C.H.A, Soc’y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, Nos. 11-2184-cv and 10-2168-cv, July 30, 2012, 2nd Cir.,as permitted by a state statute, in late 1997, the City of Buffalo contracted with the state of New York’s Civil Service Department (CSD) to have the CSD develop an examination to be administered to fire fighters who sought promotions to the position of fire lieutenant. In response to the request, an associate personnel examiner at CSD spent approximately three years performing a job analysis of fire fighters at all ranks in departments across the state.
In Passananti v. Cook County, No. 11-1182, Slip Opinion, July 20, 2012, 7th Cir., Beginning in 2004, over a period of approximately three years, a former director of the Day Reporting Center (DRC) in Cook County, IL, on numerous occasions, referred to the then-deputy director, Kimberly Passananti, as a “bitch.” At times, references came in face-to-face meetings between director and Ms. Passananti. On other occasions, the director made the references in front of other employees and he used the same term to refer to other women employees at the DRC.
In Jeudy v. Attorney General, Department of Justice, No. 11-15838, Slip. Opinion, July 26, 2012, 11th Cir.,during her probationary period of employment, a pregnant corrections officer informed her employer that as the result of her pregnancy, she experienced severe pelvic pain caused by fibroids on her uterus. According to the officer, the severe pain limited her ability to walk, stand and climb stairs. She requested an accommodation in the form of being allowed to change her shift and work while seated.
