The Supreme Court overturned a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling concerning employer-provided communication devices and workers’ privacy rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer, the city of Ontario, ruling that the search of the employee’s text messages was reasonable and not in violation of the employee’s Fourth Amendment rights.
Background of the case: Police sergeant Jeff Quon received a pager from his employer, the city of Ontario, California. The city’s contract with Arch Wireless Operating Co. contained a limit on the number of characters that could be texted on a monthly basis. If the city’s employees exceeded that limit, the city would be charged extra fees.
(more…)
We’re most familiar with discrimination cases and they do get most of the headlines. Retaliation issues and claims remain more obscure. That’s a big mistake. Retaliation claims are growing and are typically attached to discrimination allegations. They frequently arise when an employee or applicant claims that an organization took “adverse action” against him because he filed a discrimination complaint, acted as a witness, assisted in a discrimination investigation, or opposed unlawful practices.
On January 26, 2009 the plot thickened. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, clarified, complicated and expanded the scope of retaliation issues. The Court held that an employee, who answers questions and conveys information about discriminatory conduct during an internal investigation, is engaging in “protected activity” under Title VII. Surprisingly, to me at least, some lower courts had found that such involvement would not constitute “active” opposition under Title VII.
(more…)
We knew that HR law would change with a Democratic Congress and administration. Well, the changes have begun. President Obama has signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law. The law overrules the 2007 Supreme Court decision of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Inc., making it easier for employees to bring discrimination cases by allowing them more time to do so. The Act effectively increases the statute of limitations (or deadline) for filing federal pay discrimination claims, including those under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Supreme Court had said that an employee must file a discrimination claim within 300/180 days of the company’s initial act of pay discrimination. Supporters of the Ledbetter law have argued that employees may not even be aware that pay discrimination has occurred until years later and so would be essentially foreclosed from taking legal action.
(more…)
The Senate approved a measure Thursday, January 22, 2009 that would make it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination. It will now likely be among the first that President Barack Obama signs into law.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed 61-36, would restart the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit each time an employee receives a paycheck that has been diminished by discrimination. It was part of a larger pay discrimination package that the House approved January 9.
The Senate decided to act just on the Ledbetter bill, which means it now must go back to the House, where quick approval is expected. Obama and first lady Michelle Obama made the Ledbetter bill a centerpiece of campaign events designed to highlight women’s issues.
(more…)
