Important Information
On Cases |
|
American Association for Justice
2008 Annual Convention,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
July 14, 2008
Employment Discrimination Law Update
By Richard T. Seymour*
| |
13,107 new EEO Cases were filed in Federal
district courts in the twelve months ending Sept. 30, |
2006, compared to 24,174 in 1997. The striking figure is that there has
been a 45.8% decline since 1997 in the number of new fair-employment cases
filed in Federal district courts.
| |
From FY 1997 to FY 2007, there were
significant differences in the types of discrimination charges |
filed. Equal Pay Act charges declined 27.9%,
and ADA charges declined 2.1%. Race discrimination charges increased
only 4.5% and sex discrimination charges increased only 0.4%. By contrast,
age discrimination charges increased 21.0%, national origin discrimination
charges increased 40.0%, retaliation charges under all statutes increased
46.5%, and religious discrimination charges increased 68.5%.
| |
III. The Constitution,
Statutes, and Rules |
| |
Charles v. Grief, __ F.3d __, 2008
WL 788618 (5th Cir. March 26, 2008) (No. 07-50537), |
affirmed the lower court’s denial of qualified immunity to the defendant
official of the Texas Lottery Commission, as to plaintiff’s § 1983 claim
that he was fired in retaliation for complaining of racial discrimination
and mismanagement by the Commission. The court held that plaintiff complained
as a private citizen, not as a Commission employee. The case provides a
useful road map for developing the facts—where available—to meet the Garcetti
test.
| |
B. The
First and Fourteenth Amendments as to the Ministerial Exception |
| |
Rweyemamu v. Cote, __ F.3d __, 2008
WL 746822 (2d Cir. March 21, 2008) (No. 06-1041-cv), |
affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the plaintiff priest’s
promotional and termination claims against the Bishop of his diocese. The
court stated at p. *8 that “our limited precedent to date supports the following
propositions: (1) Title VII and the ADEA are not inapplicable to religious
organizations as a general matter; (2) we will permit lay employees—but
perhaps not religious employees—to bring discrimination suits against their
religious employers; and (3) even when we permit suits by lay employees,
we will not subject to examination the genuineness of a proffered religious
reason for an employment action.”
| |
Application
to Municipalities |
| |
Arendale v. City of Memphis, __
F.3d __, 2008 WL 731226 (6th Cir. March 20, 2008) (No. 07-5230),
|
affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff’s § 1981
claim, holding that § 1981 does not allow a private cause of action against
municipalities. Commen
|
