14 Penn Plaza LLC Et Al., v. Steven Pyett Et Al., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 2497

In this 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court, with Justice Thomas writing for the majority, held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that required the arbitration of discrimination claims brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) was enforceable against individual union members.

Roy M. Victor v. State of New Jersey, New Jersey State Police, et al., June 2009,401 N.J. Super. 596

The Appellate Division held that a plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered from an adverse employment action when an accommodation for a disability is denied.

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.

Kelly v. Moser, Patterson & Sheridan, LLP, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22352 (3d Cir. Oct. 9, 2009)

Absent evidence that age was a “but-for” factor in an employer’s decision to terminate an employee, the mere fact that age may have been a secondary consideration is insufficient to sustain a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) as a matter of law.

Best v. C&M Door Controls, Inc., 2009 N.J. LEXIS 1000 (2009)

The Supreme Court of New Jersey recently held that a defendant/employer cannot be awarded attorney’s fees under New Jersey Court Rule 4:58 (the offer-of-judgment rule) in a case involving the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”) and the Prevailing Wage Act (“PWA”), however a plaintiff/employee’s rejection of a reasonable settlement offer may be taken into consideration in determining the amount of attorney’s fee’s to be warded to a prevailing employee.

Lisa Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, et. al., 2009 LEXIS 592 (2009)

A unanimous Supreme Court rules that School Districts may be sued for gender discrimination under Title IX based upon Section 1983 constitutional claims.

Ma v. Chertoff, 547 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2008)

In Ma, the Second Circuit held that the Supreme Court’s holding in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U. S. 598 (2001), whereby a party, whose lawsuit brought about a “voluntary” change in the defendant's conduct but who failed to secure a judgment on the merits, is not a “prevailing party” entitled to attorneys fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Fair Housing Amendments Act ("FHAA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., also applies to suits filed under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).