The Fourth Circuit recently issued an excellent decision in Okoli v. City of Baltimore.  This case presents claims under Title VII action for sexual harassment and retaliation (termination) for reporting the harassment.  Amazingly, the trial court dismissed the case.  The Fourth Circuit reversed, concluding that the plaintiff’s allegations that her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her are sufficient to support claims of hostile work environment, quid pro quo sex harassment, and retaliation.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Appeals, Articles, Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Retaliation, Sexual Harassment, Title VII

In Campbell v. National Pipe and Plastics Inc. the Plaintiff, Sherron Campbell, was represented in part by Narendra Ghosh of Patterson Harkavy.  The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiff in affirming the North Carolina Industrial Commission’s Opinion and Award, which had awarded workers’ compensation benefits to Ms. Campbell.

Ms. Campbell suffered injuries to her right hand and fingers when attempting to stop her fall by grabbing a nearby pipe.  This injury and resulting disability also aggravated Ms. Campbell’s depression, which had been manageable up to this point.  In the appeal, the defendants contended that the Commission erred in assigning weight to Dr. Williams’ testimony, arguing that they considered it to be speculative because he did not identify a specific degree to which Ms. Campbell’s compensable injury by accident had exacerbated her preexisting condition.   However, the Court held that Dr. Williams did not need to determine to what degree the workplace injury exacerbated the psychological condition, but only that it was a factor in the exacerbation of Ms. Cambell’s preexisting condition.  The defendants also contended that the Commission did not determine if plaintiff’s statements to her doctor were credible, but the Court ruled that a doctor is entitled to rely on information provided by the patient to form his opinion.  And, in any event, the Court of Appeals does not have authority to reweigh evidence or credibility determinations after the Commission has considered it.  Defendants’ final argument that the Commission erred in giving weight to Dr. Prakken’s opinion was overruled by the Court, which concluded that the Commission does not need to explain why it has given weight to particular evidence.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, Injury by Accident, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Pre-existing condition, Results, Workers' Compensation

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of an employee last week in Kasten V. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp, which involves a retaliation claim based on verbal complaints of wage and hour violations.

The plaintiff, an employee at Saint-Gobain, complained verbally several times about the placement of the time clock at Saint-Gobain being unlawful.  The time clock was placed beyond the area where workers were required to dress in protective clothing thus they were not paid for the time they donned and doffed their protective work gear.  A lower court ruled in a related case that the placement of the time clock was indeed a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In this case, the Court considered the use of the phrase “filed any complaint” and whether it allowed for a complaint about a violation to be filed orally or if it strictly limited complaints to be filed in writing.  Justice Breyer thoroughly defined the word “file” and “filed” only to conclude that what really mattered was the spirit of the text.  Breyer found that the intended purpose of the FLSA was to protect employees many of which, at the time the law was written, were illiterate and incapable of filing complaints in writing.  The Court concluded that employees may file complaints orally if the complaint is “sufficiently clear and detailed [enough] for a reasonable employer to understand it.”  The Court, however, did not address an equally important issue about whether a complaint must be filed with a government agency, not simply an employer, to fall within the standards of the FLSA anti-retaliation provision.

This case is a partial win for employees, granting them further protection against employment discrimination under the FLSA.  (More coverage here.)

UPDATE: Jonathan Harkavy’s commentary on this case can be found here from his overview of the Supreme Court’s employment law decisions during their 2010 session.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, FLSA, Jonathan Harkavy, Labor and Employment, Retaliation, US Supreme Court, Wage and Hour

In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the US Supreme Court just issued an important unanimous decision in this military-service-based discrimination case.  This case concerns the so-called “cat’s paw” theory of liability, under which one supervisor acts with discriminatory intent against the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is actually fired by another supervisor.  The case arose under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which protects members of the military from workplace discrimination based on their military position or service.  The Court held that “if a supervisor performs an act motivated by antimilitary animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause an adverse employment action, and if that act is a proximate cause of the ultimate employment action, then the employer is liable under USERRA.”

Because the language of USERRA is very similar to Title VII, this principal likely also applies to cases of race and sex discrimination at least.  (More coverage here, here.)

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Cat's Paw, Discrimination, Labor and Employment, Military Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Title VII, US Supreme Court, USERRA

The Fourth Circuit published an opinion in National Labor Relations Board v. Interbake Foods concerning the proper procedure for the Board in evaluating claims of privilege.  The Court held that the Labor Board can itself evaluate claims of privilege for documents, and order in camera review in that process.  But, if a party refuses to produce documents to the Board, a subpoena for the documents must be enforced by a federal district court, which will have to evaluate the claims of privilege in deciding whether to enforce the subpoena.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, National Labor Relations Board, Privilege, Subpoena

The North Carolina Supreme Court has sent a tricky workers’ compensation case back the Industrial Commission for additional fact-finding.  Cardwell v. Jenkins Cleaner involves a plaintiff who was injured when she slipped on some black ice three feet away from the back door to her office.  Our coverage of the Court of Appeals’ split-decision in the case is here.

The Supreme Court, in a short per curiam order, concluded that the Industrial Commission failed to make findings on one of the key factual issues: whether the cement area where plaintiff fell was part of defendant-employer’s premises or part of the parking lot.  Accordingly, the Court remanded the case back to the Commission for additional fact-finding.

Burton Craige assisted with the amicus brief filed by the North Carolina Advocates of Justice in this case.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Burton Craige, Case Commentary, Compensable Injury, Employer Premises, Industrial Commission, NC Supreme Court, North Carolina Advocates for Justice, Workers' Compensation

In a recent unpublished opinion, Bunting v. Town of Ocean City, the Fourth Circuit partially overturned a grant of summary judgment and allowed the plaintiff to proceed to trial on his USERRA retaliation claim.   USERRA is a federal statute that protects armed service members from being discriminated in employment because of their service.  Like other anti-discrimination laws, USERRA also protects against employer retaliation because of filing a USERRA complaint.

In this case, a police sergeant filed a USERRA complaint about service-based discrimination and was subsequently denied promotions that he applied for.  While the Fourth Circuit agreed there was not enough evidence to substantiate the initial USERRA complaint, the plaintiff had produced strong evidence of the subsequent retaliation by his employer.   Thus, summary judgment was partially reversed, allowing the retaliation claim to proceed to trial.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Discrimination, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Police, Retaliation, Summary Judgment, USERRA

Late last month, in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Supreme Court  unanimously concluded that firing a worker’s fiancé in retaliation for a sex discrimination claim filed by the worker is itself unlawful retaliation under Title VII.  The anti-retaliation provision of Title VII prohibits any employer action that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.”  The Court had little trouble concluding that “a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.”  The Court also concluded that the plaintiff had the ability to sue under Title VII even though she herself was not fired.  This case is a good demonstration of the broad anti-retaliation protection provided by Title VII and similar employment laws.  (More coverage here.)

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Associational Retaliation, Case Commentary, Labor and Employment, Retaliation, Sex Discrimination, Title VII, US Supreme Court

The North Carolina Court of Appeals published two opinions on workers’ compensation earlier this month.  The first, Blalock v. Southeastern Materials, involved an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction for unreasonable defense.  N.C.G.S. § 97-88.1 permits the Industrial Commission to award a plaintiff the costs of his attorneys’ fees if the case had been defended without reasonable grounds.  Here, the Court reversed the Industrial Commission, and concluded that attorneys’ fees were appropriate in this case.  All of the medical experts, including defendants’, agreed that the plaintiff’s exposure to cinder block dust aggravated his respiratory condition, which clearly entitles him to workers’ compensation benefits.  Because defendants had no evidence to the contrary, their defense was unreasonable.

The second case, Gross v. Gene Bennett Co., involves the Parsons presumption for the compensability of medical conditions.   If a claim has been found to be or accepted as compensable, then there is a rebuttable presumption that a plaintiff’s medical conditions are related to the injury.  The Court held, however, “that in the absence of an admission of compensability of an injury by the employer or an agreement between the parties, the Parsons presumption cannot arise at the initial hearing on compensability before the Commission.”  Putting the assumption aside, the Court concluded that causation of the plaintiff’s back injury had not been proved because his doctor’s medical causation opinion was expressly qualified by an assumption that plaintiff had no prior back problems, and the Commission found that plaintiff had a prior back problem in 1997.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Aggravated Condition, Attorneys' Fees, Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, Medical Causation, NC Court of Appeals, Parsons Presumption, Sanction, Unreasonable Defense, Workers' Compensation

In Kee v. Caromont Health, Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the Industrial Commission’s rejection of a compromise settlement agreement.  The agreement originally reached by the parties involved the defendants paying plaintiff $20,000, the plaintiff resigning from her employment, and the plaintiff releasing all of her employment rights.  After plaintiff refused to sign the finalized version of the settlement agreement, the defendants tried to enforce the original agreement.

The Court and Industrial Commission both found the settlement agreement unenforceable.  Industrial Commission Rule 502 requires that in a workers’ compensation settlement, “no rights other than those arising under the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act are compromised or released.”  The agreement must also include that specific language.  Because the instant agreement involved the waiver of rights beyond workers’ compensation, and did not include the required language, it could not be enforced.

Categories: Judicial Decisions Tags: Case Commentary, Employment Rights, Industrial Commission, NC Court of Appeals, Settlements, Workers' Compensation