an update for the week of july 12, 2004
Attention New York City bike messengers! Wall Street littered with shards of glass. Punctured tires a certainty.
today's workplace: the employee rights blog
Hear the Tinkling Glass? It's a Glass Ceiling Shattering (...and some champagne toasts too): The noise undoubtedly has reverberated up and down Wall Street, if not throughout the country, after a $54 million settlement was reached yesterday in Manhattan, just before trial was to start. For a class of female employees of Morgan Stanley, this settlement may never be enough to compensate them for their earning potential before they took on one of Wall Street's venerable trading firms. But it's certainly large enough for other companies to take notice, and coupled with several other similar lawsuits in the past few years, hopefully enough to really start changing the culture for women on Wall Street.
this week in the courts
Chao v. Double JJ Resort Ranch ?(Sixth Circuit; 02-2068)
Decision Date: July 9, 2004
In a labor and employment law case involving minimum-wage and overtime-pay guarantees of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Court found that the Double JJ resort is not exempt from the requirements of the Act since it does not qualify as an amusement or recreational facility.
Fonseca v. Sysco Food Services ?(Ninth Circuit; 03-15193)
Decision Date: July 6, 2004
Court reversed summary judgment for defendants, because pro se plaintiff?s claims alleging racial discrimination by his employer under Title VII presented a legitimate prima facie case.
Loretta Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. ?(Eleventh Circuit; 03-14909)
Decision Date: June 30, 2004
An admission by the decision maker that a female employee was "the obvious choice" and "most qualified" for a pending promotion creates a genuine issue of fact in an employment discrimination action where the promotion was later given to a male employee on the basis that he was most qualified.
MacGregor v . Mallinckrodt, Inc. ?(Eighth Circuit; 03-3166)
Decision Date: June 30, 2004
There was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of her gender. The district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the size of defendant's workforce in applying the punitive damages cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3).
Named one of PC Magazine's Top 100 Sites You Can't Live Without
action center
Stop Genetic Discrimination
Stop Taxing Discrimination Victims Unfairly!
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
Copyright ? 2004 Workplace Fairness