Employment Law Observer

A Federal District Court in New York recently fielded the issue of whether there is such a thing as a union relations privilege and the extent of that privilege. In Hernandez v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (18 Civ.No.35), baseball umpire Angel Hernandez alleged that Major League Baseball (MLB) had discriminated against him with respect to crew chief assignments and post-season umpiring assignments. There was no evidence Hernandez filed a grievance under his collective bargaining agreement regarding his discrimination claim and this was key to MLB's defense. Hernandez asserted union privilege in order to protect any discussions with representatives of the Major League Baseball Umpires Association (the "Union"). A New York District Court Judge, agreeing with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, determined that under federal common law, any union relations privilege would only cover communications made in the context of representation by a union representative during disciplinary proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement.

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

Every employer has faced the unfortunate experience of hiring an employee whose performance fell well below expectation. As highlighted in the Seventh Circuit’s recent Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District decision, employers faced with poor performing employees should carefully address and document such shortcomings to ward off potential Title VII charges.

On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidelines regarding national origin discrimination. Since 2002, the EEOC has observed significant legal developments addressing national origin discrimination, warranting the need to replace its earlier guidelines. In 2015, approximately 11 percent of the 89,385 private sector charges filed with EEOC alleged national origin discrimination. These charges included unlawful failures to hire, unlawful terminations, harassment and language-related policies.

In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the Seventh Circuit stated in very clear terms that lower courts and parties to discrimination actions should not divide evidence into direct and circumstantial buckets under the familiar direct and indirect methods of proving discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s instruction should apply with equal force to claims brought under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Green v. Brennan that the statute of limitations for a constructive discharge begins to run on the date of resignation, not the date of the employer’s last discriminatory act, resolving a circuit split. As a result, in determining the deadline for filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, constructive discharge cases will be treated the same way as actual discharge cases.

Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints make up nearly half of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC today. Thus, it is critical that employers, their managers, supervisors, and employees understand who the laws protect and what constitutes retaliation.

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an employer bank did not unlawfully discriminate against a female employee based on her husband’s immigration status.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reaffirmed that an employee may not use a supervisor's negative comments regarding immigration status as evidence of national origin discrimination. In the case, Guimaraes v. SuperValu, Inc., a Brazilian supermarket employee working in the U.S. on an H-1B non-immigrant worker visa alleged that her supervisor had facilitated her termination because of her nationality. The employer, who had sponsored the employee's pending petition for legal permanent residency (i.e., her "Green Card"), argued that the employee was not terminated for any discriminatory reason, but rather for poor work performance. In response, the employee offered just one piece of evidence: her supervisor's statement that she wanted to have the Brazilian employee fired "and stop [her] Green Card process."