an update for the week of february 13, 2006
today's workplace: the employee rights blog
Making the Old "Right to Work" New Again: There was a time in this country where "right to work" meant a right to a job -- that if you couldn't find a job in the private sector, the government would provide you one, as an employer of last resort. Now, to the extent that we recognize a "right to work," it's a concept that has been distorted to mean the "right not to join a union," and governmental policy actively fights the concept of full employment. What would the employment picture look like in this country if government policy encouraged both full employment and union membership? Quite a bit different than it does right now, I'd dare say.
this week in the courts
Kolupa v. Roselle Park Dist.  (Seventh Circuit; No. 05-2925)
Decision Date: February 10, 2006
Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against his employer alleging that he was terminated on account of his religion in violation of Title VII is reversed in part where plaintiff's complaint sufficiently pled his claims.
Maalik v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors  (Seventh Circuit; No. 05-2355)
Decision Date: February 9, 2006
A finding that plaintiff was not entitled to relief on racial and sex discrimination claims under Title VII against her union is reversed where defendant's failure to act in response to union mechanics' discriminatory refusal to train plaintiff made defendant liable under provisions of Title VII.
Lippert v. Cmty. Bank, Inc.  (Eleventh Circuit; No. 04-16535)
Decision Date: February 8, 2006
Summary judgment to bank defendant-employer on a claim of retaliation for protected whistleblowing is reversed where a reasonable jury could find that defendant's decision-maker did know of plaintiff?s communications directly with the FDIC, and thus defendant's protected conduct could have contributed toward the decision to terminate him.
Ledbetter v. Alltel Corp. Servs., Inc.  (Eighth Circuit; No. 04-3807, 04-3990)
Decision Date: February 7, 2006
Judgment and awards of damages for plaintiff against his employer in a suit alleging race discrimination under Title VII and related laws is affirmed where the district court did not err in 1) finding defendant engaged in intentional discrimination, 2) admitting statistical evidence, 3) calculating backpay, or 4) awarding compensatory damages.
Your Rights in the Workplace
action center
Wal-Mart: Bad for Workers, Bad for America
Stop Genetic Discrimination
Workplace Week is published weekly by Workplace Fairness, a non-profit
public benefit organization allied with the National Employment Lawyers Association.
Workplace Fairness wants to hear from you. Please write us.
Tell a friend about Workplace Week by clicking here.
contact us  |  privacy policy  |  subscribe
workplace fairness
© 2006 Workplace Fairness