In Eagle v. Morgan, et al., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied in part a motion to dismiss an employer’s claim that a former employee misappropriated and engaged in unfair competition when the former employee continued to maintain the connections she had obtained on her LinkedIn account during her employment.

Plaintiff, along with two others, owned and worked at Edcomm, Inc., which provided banking training services. In 2008, plaintiff created a LinkedIn account for the alleged purposes of promoting Edcomm’s banking education services, fostering her reputations as a businesswoman, reconnecting with family, friends, and colleagues, and building social and professional relationships. Defendant Elizabeth Sweeney assisted plaintiff in maintaining her LinkedIn account and had access to her password.

While under the management of plaintiff, Edcomm implemented a policy that required Edcomm employees to create and maintain LinkedIn accounts according to Edcomm’s specifications. Certain Edcomm employees monitored employees’ LinkedIn accounts, corrected any violations of Edcomm policy, and maintained accounts for several employees for the benefit of Edcomm. Edcomm allegedly requested and retrieved Edcomm-related connections and contents from departing employees’ LinkedIn accounts.

A company purchased all outstanding shares in Edcomm and plaintiff was terminated from her employment in 2011. When plaintiff attempted to login to her LinkedIn account shortly after she was terminated, she was unable to access the account. Plaintiff alleged that executives of Edcomm gained unauthorized access to and hijacked her LinkedIn account. Plaintiff claimed that, by using her password as provided by defendant Sweeny, defendants changed her password so she could not access the LinkedIn account and then changed her account profile to reflect the picture and name of defendant Sandi Morgan. As a result, individuals who searched for plaintiff were routed to defendant Morgan’s name and picture and plaintiff’s biographical information, including her connections. Plaintiff alleged that defendants refused to return plaintiff’s LinkedIn account to her.

Edcomm filed a lawsuit against plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging securities fraud and breach of contract, among other causes of action. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging 11 causes of action against defendants for the unauthorized access and use of her LinkedIn account. In response, Edcomm filed a Counterclaim against plaintiff claiming that three weeks before initiating the lawsuit, plaintiff regained control of the LinkedIn account and refused to return Edcomm proprietary information on the LinkedIn account and wrongfully misappropriated Edcomm’s connections on the LinkedIn account.

Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to defendants’ Counterclaim. In response, Edcomm argued that it was the rightful owner of plaintiff’s LinkedIn account connections as Edcomm’s personnel developed, maintained, and furthered the LinkedIn account for Edcomm’s sole benefit and use. Defendants further alleged that plaintiff misappropriated her LinkedIn account connections for her own use. While the district court dismissed most of the causes of action against plaintiff, the district court denied the motion to dismiss as to defendant’s claims of misappropriation and unfair competition as defendants’ allegations were sufficient to create an issue of fact as to the claims under Pennsylvania law.

The full Memorandum regarding plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss can be found here.

To read articles with additional commentary regarding this topic, click here or here.

WI  – A federal judge ordered HCS Medical Staffing, Inc. to pay $148,000 in back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages to a former employee in a pregnancy discrimination case.  The suit alleged that the owner referred to the employee’s pregnancy as a joke and fired her because she needed to take maternity leave.  With no prior warning, HCS terminated her employment and health insurance while she was still in the hospital recovering from the birth.

GA – Gerresheimer Peachtree City, a plastics manufacturer, will pay $90,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the Gerresheimer employee filed an internal gender-based wage discrimination complaint which concluded there was no discrimination in wages.  The employee then filed a charge with the EEOC and was fired six weeks later for purportedly misusing leave time.

VA – Rugo Stone, LLC, a stone contracting company, will pay $40,000 to settle a national origin, religion and color bias lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the former employee was subjected to almost daily derogatory comments from supervisors, his project manager, and the company’s owner.  The employee made an internal complaint, but harassment continued.

MI – Atsalis Brothers Painting Company will pay $65,000 to settle an EEOC retaliation lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the former employee, a painter, lost his job due to complaints he raised about racism.  The company didn’t bring the employee back for the next work season.

FL – Menorah House, a nursing and rehabilitation facility, will pay $125,000 to settle two religious discrimination lawsuits brought on behalf of two former employees.  The suit charged that Menorah House instituted a policy requiring all employees to work on Saturdays, regardless of religious beliefs.  Two certified nursing assistants who were Seventh-Day Adventists were fired because the new schedule conflicted with Sabbath accommodations.

NY – The insurance company Sterling and Sterling, Inc. will pay $120,000 to settle an EEOC suit for retaliation brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the company fired the employee for filling out the EEOC questionnaire with complaints of race and sex harassment.  Sterling cited her EEOC filing in her suspension and subsequent firing.

NY – Family Video Movie Club, Inc. agreed to pay $70,000 to settle a disability discrimination suit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the sales associate was harassed because of his depression and anxiety disorder and was fired after issuing a complaint.

MN – Hal Leonard Publishing Company will pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment charge brought on behalf of a class of female employees.  An investigation by the EEOC revealed that the women were subjected to unwelcomed sex-based comments and grabbing by co-workers at the company’s facility.  Misconduct continued despite complaints to management.

NY – Warren Tricomi, a hair salon, will pay $30,000 in a pregnancy discrimination suit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The company rescinded the employee’s promotion from assistant colorist to colorist and fired her after she informed the company she was pregnant.  She will also be provided a positive job reference.

CA – Olam Americas, Inc., an agricultural supplier, has settled a pregnancy discrimination suit for $140,000 brought on behalf of a job applicant.  The company made an initial offer to the jobseeker for an executive assistant position which was rescinded after she disclosed her pregnancy.

NV – Sierra Restroom Solutions has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a federal racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought on behalf of a former driver.  The suit alleged that the African-American employee endured racial comments, epithets and harassment from his co-worker during the one and a half years of his employment.  He was fired two days after complaining to his supervisor for the second time in one month.

MD – Adams Jeep of Maryland, an auto dealership, will pay $50,000 in a disability discrimination and harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit charged that the company refused to provide reasonable accommodation to the employee after she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.  The employee was subjected to inappropriate epithets by coworkers and fired while out on medical leave of absence.

WA – A federal district court has awarded $56,500 to a former Cottonwood Financial employee.  The suit alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Washington Law Against Discrimination when it fired an employee it regarded as too disabled to work because of his bipolar disorder.  The company denied the employee’s leave request to adjust to new medication.  He was then fired when need for sick leave arose.

GA – Cadillac Jack, Inc., a supplier of games and systems, will pay $87,200 to settle a retaliation lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the employee, a contracts manager, was fired one day after lodging a race and gender discrimination complaint.

MA – AutoZone, Inc. will pay $75,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the employee was subject to harassment by managers and prohibited from wearing a turban at work.  According to the lawsuit, the employee was terminated because of his conversion to the Sikh religion and in retaliation to his request for appropriate accommodation.

The new Enforcement Guidance reminds employers that “even where employers apply criminal record exclusions uniformly, the exclusions may still operate to disproportionately and unjustifiably exclude people of a particular race or national origin” giving rise to a disparate impact claim under Title VII unless the exclusion is job related and consistent with business necessity.  Although Title VII does not prohibit employers from obtaining criminal background checks about applicants or employees, the new Enforcement Guidance states “as a best practice, and consistent with applicable laws,” the EEOC “recommends that employers not ask about convictions on job applications.”  Several States have laws regulating the use of background information in the employment context.  For example, see the Laconic Law Blog’s post about Massachusetts’ law prohibiting employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history.

Additionally, the Enforcement Guidance states that to survive a potential disparate impact claim, it is the EEOC’s position that most employers should develop a targeted screen that considers at least the nature of the crime, the time elapsed, and the nature of the job, and then provide an opportunity for an individualized assessment to determine if the policy as applied to the applicant or employee is job related and consistent with business necessity.  The EEOC states that although an individualized assessment is not required by Title VII in all circumstances, “the use of a screen that does not include an individualized assessment is more likely to violate Title VII.”  The EEOC includes suggested best practices for employers who consider criminal background information when making employment decisions.   

To review the new Enforcement Guidance, click here.  The EEOC also published a Questions and Answers regarding the Enforcement Guidance.  

Below are additional blog posts regarding the new Guidance:  

Ohio Employer’s Law Blog  

The Employer Handbook

Connecticut Employment Law Blog 

AL – A federal jury ordered Alabama State University to pay more than $1 million to three women in a racial and sexual harassment case.  The women alleged their supervisor, a female administrator, frequently used racial slurs and commented to one plaintiff on her body. 

GA – A Fulton County found in favor of three Atlanta Fire Rescue employees in a class-action race discrimination lawsuit.  The suit alleged that some of the black fire fighters were given the answers to a promotion exam.  The court has yet to reach a decision on how much the city owes the employees. 

IA – An Iowa jury found in favor of the University of Iowa College of Law in an age discrimination lawsuit brought by a job applicant.  The plaintiff alleged that he was denied a law professor position because of his age, and the school instead hired two candidates under the age of 40 with less experience. 

TX – JacintoPort International, L.L.C., a government contractor, agreed to pay $219,000 in back wages to 48 African American and 21 Caucasian job applicants to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit.  The suit alleged that the company gave preferential treatment to Latino applicants and systematically discriminated against African Americans and Caucasians in filling longshoreman jobs. 

CA- A federal jury awarded $168 million, the largest judgment for a single victim of workplace harassment in U.S. history, to a former physician assistant at Sacramento’s Mercy General Hospital in a workplace harassment and wrongful termination lawsuit.  The physician assistant alleged that the work environment was filled with sexually inappropriate conduct, bullying and intimidation of women. 

NV – A federal jury ordered Roche Pharmaceuticals to pay over $1.8 million to a former sales manager in a retaliation lawsuit.  The jury found that the former employee was retaliated against for complaining about what he reasonably perceived to be age discrimination.  

IA – The U.S. Department of Labor has settled a hiring discrimination case with NCS Pearson Inc., a federal government contractor.  The suit alleged that the company was systematically discriminating against Asian job applicants in its Iowa City facility.  The company will pay $100,000 in back wages and interest to 67 job applicants. 

Plaintiff was a neo-natal intensive care unit (“NICU”) nurse at a medical center in Oregon.  The medical center’s attendance policy prohibited five unplanned absences during a rolling 12-month period.  During her employment, plaintiff had fibromyalgia, a condition that limited her sleep and caused chronic pain.  Plaintiff exceeded the number of unplanned absence allowed under the medical center attendance policy for several years of her employment despite having many absences that were not counted towards the unplanned absence limit, such as intermittent medical leaves.  In 2006, plaintiff and the medical center agreed to an accommodation under which plaintiff’s two weekly shifts would not be scheduled on consecutive days.  Plaintiff requested as an accommodation that she be exempt from the attendance policy altogether and that she be permitted an unspecified number of unplanned absences.  After continually exceeding the permitted unplanned absences allowed under the medical center policy, Plaintiff was terminated in 2008 for excessive absences and attendance problems.  

Plaintiff filed suit against the medical center alleging, among other claims, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.  At summary judgment, the medical center presented evidence that NICU nurses have specialized training making it very difficult to find replacements and unplanned absences, resulting in being understaffed, could compromise patient care.   The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the medical center concluding that because plaintiff was unable to adhere to the medical center attendance policy, she was unqualified for her position as a matter of law.  The district court also held that the 2006 work plan was a reasonable accommodation and plaintiff’s request to be exempt from the attendance policy was unreasonable.    

The Court of Appeals affirmed holding that regular attendance is an essential function of a NICU nursing position.  The Court of Appeals stated that as a NICU nurse, plaintiff’s job united “the trinity of requirements that make regular on-site presence necessary for regular performance: teamwork, face-to-face interaction with patients and their families, and working with medical equipment.”  The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that her attendance was not an essential function of her position because her absences had exceeded those permitted under the attendance policy in past years without repercussion.  The Court of Appeals further held that plaintiff’s requested accommodation of being exempt from the attendance policy and allowed an unspecified number of unplanned absences was unreasonable as it would allow plaintiff to miss work whenever she felt she needed to and apparently for so long as she felt she need to.          

To read the full decision, click here.

The final rule is consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, and clarifies that the employer has both the burden of production and persuasion to establish the RFOA defense.  The EEOC also crystallizes its position that the RFOA defense requires more than a showing that the policy or practice has a rational basis. The RFOA defense, however, is intended to be a less-demanding standard than the business necessity defense of Title VII.

In addition to clarifying the burdens on employers, the new rule offers guidance on the meaning and application of “reasonable factors other than age.”  In general, the final rule defines an RFOA as “a non-age factor that is objectively reasonable when viewed from the position of a prudent employer mindful of its responsibilities under the ADEA under like circumstances.”   Under the new regulation, to establish the RFOA defense, an employer must show (1) that the employment practice was both reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose, and (2) that it was administered in a way that reasonably achieves that purpose in light of the particular facts and circumstances that were known, or should have been known, to the employer.

The regulation provides a non-exclusive list of considerations that the EEOC considers relevant in determining whether an employment practice is based on a reasonable factor other than age:

• The extent to which the factor is related to the employer’s stated purpose;

• The extent to which the employer defined the factor accurately and applied the factor fairly and accurately, including managers guidance or training about how to apply the factor and avoid discrimination;

• The extent to which the employer limited supervisors’ discretion to assess employees subjectively, particularly where the criteria that the supervisors were asked to evaluate are known to be subject to negative age-based stereotypes;

• The extent to which the employer assessed the adverse impact of its employment practices on older workers; and

• The degree of harm to individuals within the protected age group, in terms of both the extent of injury and the numbers of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took steps to reduce the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps.

The regulation states that all of these considerations are relevant, but that the presence or absence of any listed consideration does not necessarily determine whether the defense applies.  Instead, whether an employment practice is based on reasonable factors other than age must be decided based on all of the particular facts and circumstances of any given situation.

The preceding information was provided by the EEOC’s FAQ’s on the ADEA changes.  More FAQ’s about the final rule can be found here.

The final rule in its entirety, including open comments and responses can be found here:

Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The lawsuit questioned every hiring and promotion decision made at 37 state agencies, involving 20,000 jobs and 500,000 applications, but failed to challenge a particular employment practice that was discriminatory.  Rather, it was based on the theory of a psychology professor who believes that “implicit bias” taints all decisions.  (A theory that has been questioned.)

Maybe we will just end up giving everyone “brain scans” to see if they think in politicaly correct ways.

The AP has a story about the trial decision here or here.

On December 15, 2009, Plaintiff Carla Gerner’s position was eliminated due a re-organization after she worked with the County for twenty-five years, including twelve as a department director.  Gerner was the County’s Director of Human Resources Management.  Gerner was offered a severance package of three months’ pay and health benefits.  She ultimately declined the offer.  Gerner’s employment was terminated effective December 15, 2009. 

Gerner filed an action alleging disparate treatment on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII.  Gerner alleged that the County did not offer her the same “sweetheart” severance package offered to similarly-situated male counterparts.  She claimed that prior male directors were either transferred or kept on payroll, with benefits, to enhance their retirement benefits.  She cited to four male comparators in support of her claim.

The Complaint was dismissed by the district court on the County’s motion.  The district court dismissed Gerner’s complaint because on the basis that Gerner failed to allege a “factual basis” for the third element of a prima facie case — that is, she failed to allege an “adverse employment action.”  The court found that “the County’s offer of a less favorable severance package” did not constitute an adverse employment action for two reasons.  First, the court held that severance benefits must be a “contractual entitlement” to provide the basis of an adverse employment action under Title VII.  Second, the court held that because “the offer of the severance package was made after [Gerner] had been terminated,” it could not constitute an adverse action.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment, concluding that both reasons for dismissal were flawed.  First, with respect to the district court’s finding that an employment benefit must be a contractual right in order for its denial to provide the basis for a Title VII claim, the Court found this to be in contradiction of applicable precedent.  In situations like that at hand, where an employee did not volunteer for a change in employment benefits or retain a job in lieu of a new benefit, courts have consistently recognized that the discriminatory denial of a non-contractual employment benefit constitutes an adverse employment action. 

Second, the Fourth Circuit stated that Title VII protects both current and former employees from discriminatory employment practice for an employer “to discriminate against any individual” on the basis of membership in a protected class.  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added).  Courts have consistently interpreted this intentionally broad language to apply to potential, current, and past employees.  To limit actionable adverse employment actions to those taken while an individual is currently employed would be inconsistent with the statutory text and Title VII’s “principal goal” of eliminating discrimination in employment.

The court also noted that the district court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and therefore, Gerner’s allegations (although it may not be ultimately proven) that she was not terminated until after she rejected the offer must accepted as true.

The decision by the appeals court sends the case back to Hudson for pretrial proceedings. A copy of the decision can be found here.

The Maryland law prohibits an employer from refusing to hire applicants because of the applicant’s refusal to disclose his or her password for personal accounts. Employers are also prohibited from taking, or threatening to take, disciplinary action against an employee for an employee’s refusal to disclose his or her password to a personal account. The Maryland law provides that an employer may require that an employee disclose any user name and password for non-personal accounts that provide access to the employer’s internal computer or information systems.

The law also makes it unlawful for an employee to download unauthorized employer proprietary information or financial data to an employee’s personal web site, an internet web site, or a web-based account. Employers who receive information indicating that an employee has engaged in such an unlawful download are permitted to investigate the employee’s conduct.

California and Illinois are also considering similar legislation prohibiting employers from requiring employees to disclose user name or account password information for social media accounts. To review California’s proposed bill, click here.

NM – DXP Enterprises, Inc. will pay $120,000 to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that DXP hired the employee and then fired her a few days later after learning that she had a back injury. 

GA – A federal jury ordered an Atlanta-area restaurant to pay $51,700 in back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages to four former employees in a sexual harassment lawsuit.  The suit alleged that the four employees reported the harassment to the restaurant owner on several occasions, but nothing was done about it, and the restaurant terminated the employees in retaliation for their complaints. 

MD – Professional Medial Corporation, a company that publishes a health magazine, agreed to pay $58,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee who had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Auditory Processing Disorder.  The suit alleged that the company had a policy of forcing employees to sign a “health warranty” to certify their health and that they do not use mediations. 

CA – Buy Rite Thrift Store will pay $50,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a former retail stocker who has epilepsy.  The suit alleged that the company relied on its own judgment in terminating the employee because it believed the employee was a danger to himself and to others, when it should have requested that the employee take a fitness exam or provide medical documentation of his ability to perform the job duties in the position. 

TX – Hobson Air Conditioning, Inc. agreed to pay $37,500 to settle a sexual harassment and constructive discharge lawsuit brought on behalf of a former installation coordinator.  The suit alleged that the company subjected the employee to a sexually hostile work environment, including physical touches and vulgar comments.  Although the employee reported the harassment to higher management, the company did not investigate or stop the harassment. 

MN – Product Fabricators, Inc. will pay $40,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a former employee.  The suit alleged that the company fired the long-time employee because he was taking a low dose prescribed narcotic medication for his back pain. 

MO – Convergys Customer Management Group, a provider of customer management services, agreed to pay $15,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a job applicant.  The suit alleged that the company refused to hire the applicant because he said he could not work Saturdays due to his religious beliefs. 

TX – Brooks County, Texas will pay $20,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit brought on behalf of an employee.  The suit alleged that the County repeatedly refused to give the employee a salary increase or consider her for another position because she filed an age discrimination complaint.

IL – Jimmy’s Charthouse, a steak restaurant, agreed to pay $205,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of several female employees.  The suit alleged that restaurant employees, including former managers, harassed female hostesses and waitresses through sexual propositions, crude comments, and groping. 

AL – Ready Mix USA, a cement and concrete products company, will pay $400,000 to settle a racial harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of African American employees.  The suit alleged that a noose was on display at the worksite and that employees, including supervisors, utilized derogatory racial language. 

TN – The owners of two Piggly Wiggly supermarkets agreed to pay $40,000 to settle a race and gender discrimination lawsuit.  The suit alleged that the supermarkets had a policy of discriminating against African American job applicants because of their race, that the stores maintained a segregated work force, and that the stores had an established practice of not hiring males for cashier positions. 

MO – Tyson Foods, Inc. will pay $35,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of a job applicant.  The suit alleged that the company did not hire an applicant with epilepsy because the applicant did not pass the company medical evaluation.  The doctor who examined the applicant allegedly relied on outdated medical research to determine whether the applicant could safely perform the job duties. 

FL – A Hurricane Grill and Wings owner agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of female servers.  The suit alleged that the servers were physically and verbally harassed, including being grabbed and subjected to sexual innuendo and direct sexual invitations. 

On December 1, 1994, David Williams entered into a Deferred Compensation Agreement (“Agreement”) with his employer, CDP, Inc.  The Agreement provided that the company would pay $100,000 annually to his spouse, Sharon Williams, after his death.  The Agreement contained a paragraph that defined deferred compensation payable to David Williams at his retirement as well as a death benefit payable to his spouse.  That same day, David Williams also signed an Employment Agreement that ended upon the termination of his employment. 

David Williams died while still employed by CDP, and in accordance with the Agreement, following his death, Sharon Williams began receiving monthly payments totaling $100,000 per year.  Nine years after her husband’s death, the company stopped paying Williams, and Williams brought a lawsuit against CDP and several affiliated companies seeking to enforce the Agreement. 

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and held that as a matter of law the Agreement unambiguously required David Williams to be retired as a condition precedent to the payment of the spousal death benefit.  Because David Williams was still employed by the company when he died, the court determined that Williams had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Williams subsequently appealed.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed and found that the Agreement was ambiguous.  Although the court found the district court’s reading of the paragraph in question to be reasonable, the court stated that there was another reasonable interpretation of the words employed by the parties in the contract.  The court examined the sentence structure of the paragraph in question to determine that the Agreement was susceptible to multiple interpretations.  

The Defendants argued that the court should read the Deferred Compensation Agreement and the Employment Agreement together – that the Employment Agreement necessarily limited the Deferred Compensation Agreement.  Essentially, Defendants charged that the benefits of the Deferred Compensation Agreement began after at the end of the benefits under the Employment Agreement  – at David Williams’s retirement.  The court disagreed.  Although it construed the meanings of the two agreements together, the court held that the term of the Deferred Compensation Agreement began as of the date of the Agreement.  Furthermore, the court held that the two agreements provided distinct benefits payable to different beneficiaries.  

To view the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, click here.

FL – A federal jury ordered a firefighter union and Pasco County to pay $189,000 in a race and religious discrimination lawsuit brought by two former firefighters.  The suit alleged that a captain made racist and anti-Semitic remarks, and subsequent to the firefighters complaining, the union published a memo calling the complaints frivolous.  

MO – A Missouri jury ordered Lee’s Summit to pay $68,194.61 to a city bailiff.  The plaintiff charged that the city refused to hire him for the position of court security officer based on his age. 

GA – A federal jury has awarded $51,700 to four family members who worked at a Mexican Café.  The lawsuit was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and alleged that the plaintiffs were sexually harassed by a male cook and terminated when they reported the harassment. 

KY – A Kentucky jury awarded a former women’s basketball coach $388,325 in a gender discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.  The suit alleged that the plaintiff was retaliated against and terminated when she complained that the school had refused to modify her job assignments to accommodate her coaching schedule, although it did accommodate the male coaches. 

PA – A federal jury found that the city of Erie discriminated against a former firefighter in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The suit stemmed from the firefighter’s attempt to commit suicide through smoke inhalation by setting fire to her father’s vacant home. 

CA – A jury awarded $1.16 million to three former transit employees in a retaliation lawsuit.  The suit alleged that the employees were harassed and terminated after testifying before or providing documents to a grand jury.