Tag Archives: test

EEOC’s First GINA Suit Settlement

The first settlement between the EEOC and an employer over GINA is important because it brings attention to this relatively new law.  EEOC charges alleging GINA violations have increased each year.  Consequently, it is important for employers to ensure their policies and procedures are compliant with GINA procedures.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) went into effect in 2009.  Some of GINA’s regulations are as follows.

  • It is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees or applicants based on their genetic information.
  • Employers cannot request or obtain genetic information, which includes any information about an employee or an applicant’s family history.
  • GINA also applies to third parties.  So, employers cannot request or obtain family medical history, even through a third-party medical provider or examiner.
  • There are exceptions for voluntary health risk assessments.  However, if the employee is receiving an incentive for completion of the Health Risk Assessment, the employer must make clear that an employee need not answer any of the questions about family medical history in order to obtain the incentive.

On May 7, 2013, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) reached a milestone of sorts as it filed – and then settled – its first complaint ever alleging genetic discrimination under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”).

The EEOC filed suit in Oklahoma federal court against Fabricut Inc., one of the world’s largest distributors of decorative fabrics, alleging that Fabricut violated GINA and the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by unlawfully asking a job applicant for her family medical history in a pre-employment, post-job offer medical examination, and allegedly rescinding her job offer based on the belief that she had carpal tunnel syndrome.

The EEOC and Fabricut reached a settlement, which is the first settlement in a GINA case.  In the consent decree, Fabricut agreed to pay $50,000 but did not admit to violating GINA or the ADA.

via EEOC’s First GINA Suit Serves As Reminder of Pre-Employment Exam Pitfall | Proskauer Rose LLP – JDSupra.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under civil rights, discrimination, employment, federal, regulations, rules

Sup. Ct. March Calendar

Next month, the Supreme Court will be hearing high profile cases – including the gay marriage debate (California’s Proposition 8 and DOMA), as well as voter registration laws.  In addition, the Supreme Court will hear a variety of important issues, such as class arbitration waivers, generic pharmaceutical regulations, and reimbursement or payment under the Takings Clause.

The following are the oral arguments scheduled for March.

Monday March 18

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona:

  1. Whether the 9th Circuit erred in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Art. 1, Sec. 4, Cl. 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions; and
  2. Whether the 9th Circuit erred in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote.

Bullock v. Bankchampaign

  1. What degree of misconduct by a trustee constitute “defalcation” under Sec. 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code that disqualifies the errant trustee’s resulting debt from a bankruptcy discharge, and whether it includes actions that result in no loss of trust property.

Tuesday March 19

Sebelius v. Cloer

  1. Whether a person whose petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is dismissed as untimely may recover from the United States an award of attorney’s fees and costs.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

  1. Whether the 1st Circuit erred when it created a circuit split and held – in clear conflict with this Court’s decisions in PLIVA v. Mensing, Riegel v. Medtronic, and Cipollone v. Ligget Group – that federal law does not preempt state law design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical products because the conceded conflict between such claims and the federal laws governing generic pharmaceutical design allegedly can be avoided if the makers of generic pharmaceuticals simply stop making their products.

Wednesday March 20

Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture

  1. Whether the 9th Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of 5 other circuit courts of appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a “direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government,” E. Enterp. v. Apfel, but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims; and
  2. Whether the 9th Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s takings defense, even though petitioners, as “handlers” of raisin under the Raisin Marketing Order, as statutory required under 7 USC 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court.

Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey

  1. Whether state statutory, common law negligence, and consumer protection act enforcement actions against two-motor carrier based on state law regulating the sale and disposal of a towed vehicle are related to a transportation service provided by the carrier and thus preempted by 49 USC 14501-c-1.

Monday March 25

Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter

  1. Whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act (as the 2nd and 3d Circuits have held) or exceeds those powers (as the 5th Circuit has held) by determining that parties affirmatively “agreed to authorize class arbitration,” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., based solely on their use of broad contractual language precluding litigation and requiring arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract.

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis

  1. Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the 3d Circuit has held).

Tuesday March 26

Hollingsworth v. Perry

  1. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and
  2. Whether petitioners have standing under Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution in this case.

Wednesday March 27

United States v. Windsor

  1. Whether Section 3 of the Defense Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; 
  2. Whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and
  3. Whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.

via New March argument calendar : SCOTUSblog.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lower pay for related care givers struck down

Minnesota Lawyer (Dec. 24, 2012, subscription required) has an interested article regarding Minn. Stat. 256B.0659 (2011).  In 2011, the Minnesota legislature passed a bill stating that non relative personal care attendants were to receive a pay rate of 80% of the non relative pay.  In other words, relative personal care attendants would receive a 30% pay cut.  In Healthstar v. Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson, the Court of Appeals reversed the Ramsey District Court decision.  The court struck down the statute.

The court held that the statute did not meet the prong of showing that the bill was not manifestly arbitrary of fanciful, but that it must be genuine and substantial.  The court stated that the commissioner’s argument was “based on an assumption that relative PCAs will continue to provide care even if affected by a pay cut.”

The court further stated that “the rationale for the distinction advanced by respondent is based purely on assumptions rather than facts, including the apparently unchallenged assumption that a moral obligation to provide care for a relative necessarily equates to a moral obligation to personally provide such care at a lower rate of pay than a nonrelative PCA would receive for the same work.”

The Court of Appeals also held that the statute did not meet the prong that the classification must be genuine or relevant to the purpose of the law.  The court stated that the commissioner did not show any facts in support of its assumption.

Leave a comment

Filed under Appellate, Uncategorized

NLRB Issues Primer On Supervisory Status

Alternative Concepts, 358 NLRB No. 38 April 27, 2012, is an interesting case. The Board reaffirms the Oakwood line of cases and summarizes the applicable law as follows:

The Board set out the analytical framework for determiningsupervisory status in Oakwood Healthcare, 348 NLRB 686 2006, in which it defined the statutory terms“assign,” “responsibly to direct,” and “independentjudgment.” See also Croft Metals, 348 NLRB 717, 721–722 2006, and Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348NLRB 727, 728, 731 2006. The burden of provingsupervisory status rests on the party asserting that suchstatus exists. Oakwood Healthcare, 348 NLRB at 694,citing Dean & Deluca New York, 338 NLRB 1046, 10472003. The party seeking to prove supervisory statusmust establish it by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.at 1047–1048; Springfield Terrace LTD, 355 NLRB 937,941 2010. Mere inferences or conclusionary statements,without detailed, specific evidence, are insufficientto establish supervisory authority. Golden CrestHealthcare Center, 348 NLRB at 731; Lynwood Manor,350 NLRB 489, 490 2007.

Like the other statutory indicia of supervisory status,the authority to assign and responsibly to direct otheremployees are not determinative of supervisory statusunless they are exercised using independent judgment.To exercise “independent judgment,” an individual mustact or effectively recommend action “free of the controlof others,” using a degree of discretion rising above “themerely routine or clerical.” Oakwood Healthcare, 348NLRB at 693.In Oakwood Healthcare, 348 NLRB at 689, the Boardexplained that assignment means designating an employeeto a place such as a location, department, orwing, appointing an employee to a time such as a shiftor overtime period, or giving an employee significantoverall duties as opposed to ad hoc instructions that theemployee perform a discrete task. There must be specificevidence that a putative supervisor “has the abilityto require that a certain action be taken; supervisory authorityis not established where the putative supervisorhas the authority merely to request that a certain actionbe taken.” Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRBat 729.The Board in Oakwood Healthcare, 348 NLRB at 691,also interpreted the meaning of the phrase “responsiblyto direct”: “If a person on the shop floor has ‘men underhim,’ and if that person decides ‘what job shall be undertakennext or who shall do it,’ that person is a supervisor,provided that the direction is both ‘responsible’ and carriedout with independent judgment.” The Board furtherheld that, for direction to be “responsibl[e],” the persondirecting the performance of a task must be accountablefor its performance. To establish accountability for purposesof responsible direction, the party with the burdenof proof must show that “the employer delegated to theputative supervisor the authority to direct the work [ofothers] and the authority to take corrective action, if necessary,”and also that “there is a prospect of adverse consequencesfor the putative supervisor” if the putativesupervisor “does not take these steps.”12 Id. at 692. Evidenceof actual accountability must be present to proveresponsible direction. Alstyle Apparel, 351 NLRB 1287,1287 2007; Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRB at 731.B.We find that neither the crew dispatchers nor line controllers are statutory supervisors.

via Adjunct Law Prof Blog: NLRB Issues Primer On Supervisory Status.

Leave a comment

Filed under labor, NLRB, union