Webb v. City of Philadelphia, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 7169 (3rd Cir. Apr. 7, 2009)

In Webb, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that a police officer’s request to wear religious garb with her uniform could not be reasonably accommodated without imposing an undue burden upon the City of Philadelphia.  Kimberlie Webb, a Muslim police officer employed by the City of Philadelphia, filed a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia on October 5, 2005.  The suit asserted three causes of action under Title VII, i.e., religious discrimination, retaliation/hostile work environment, and sex discrimination, and one cause of action under the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act (RFPA), 71 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 2401.

Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 870 (2009)

The United States Supreme Court recently held that when an employee discloses incidents of sexual harassment in response to questions posed during an internal investigation of another employee’s sexual harassment complaint it constitutes “opposition” to sexual harassment for purposes of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision.

AT&T Corp. v. Noreen Hulteen, S.Ct. (2009); 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3470 (May 18, 2009)

The Supreme Court awarded a victory to corporate pension plans on May 18, when it ruled that they need not give equal credit for a female employee’s pregnancy leave as for other forms of disability where that leave was taken prior to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s (“PDA”) effective date in 1979.  The decision applies only to pension systems that had pre-PDA policies of granting less credit for pregnancy leave than for other disability leave.

Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2008)

In Alleyne, the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of a discrimination plaintiff’s claim as time-barred, holding that the statute of limitations was triggered by the employer’s allegedly discriminatory acts, and not when the consequences of those acts “became most painful.”

Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 548 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2008)

In Mathirampuzha, the Second Circuit held that an employer was entitled to summary judgment with respect to employment discrimination claims raised against it because, in part, the physical assault allegedly suffered by the plaintiff at the hands of a supervisor did not amount to an “adverse employment action.” Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiff’s retaliation and hostile work environment claims were barred due to his failure to seek administrative remedies, because these claims were not reasonably related to his administrative complaint arising from the physical assault. Finally, the Court held that the Secretary of Labor, and not the courts, have exclusive, unreviewable authority to determine the scope of coverage under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (“FECA”).

Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (2008)

In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit, reviewing the standards for stating a claim for mixed-motive discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, held that an employment discrimination claim proceeding under a mixed-motive theory must necessarily fail if it is irrefutable that the plaintiff fails to meet the minimum objective standards for the position.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 530 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008)

In Ricci v. DeStefano, 118 firefighters took a promotional exam for Captain and Lieutenant positions within the New Haven Fire Department. Although 41 applicants took the Captain examination, 16 of which were minority, only two minority applicants scored well enough to be eligible for promotion to Captain. For the Lieutenant examination, 77 applicants took the exam but none of the 34 minority applicants scored well enough to be eligible for promotion to Lieutenant. Subsequently, the New Haven Civil Service Board decided not to certify the results to avoid a potential employment discrimination lawsuit by non-white applicants who were not promoted. Eighteen applicants (17 white and one Hispanic) filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut to challenge the city’s decision not to certify the results and promote them. This was an unusual case since the plaintiffs attack not the use of an allegedly racially discriminatory exam but the refusal to use the results. Plaintiffs argued that the city used race-based considerations to non-certify the test results in violation of the law.

Richardson v. Comm’n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 532 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2008)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held that a union contract, which provided that disputes were not arbitrable if a charge is filed with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and that the Union’s adherence to this provision did not constitute retaliation.