an update for the week of july 31, 2006
today's workplace: the employee rights blog
Some Good Things Are Blowing From the Windy City: While Chicago may not be so windy these days, with the summer heat wave and all, there is some good news for workers blowing out of the Chicago area this week. Between the passage of a living wage ordinance for big-box workers, and an appeals court decision reinstating the case of a teen who was sexually harassed by her supervisor, some winds of change are coming out of the Windy City which could actually affect quite a few workers outside of Chi-town.
this week in the courts
Lear Siegler Servs., Inc. v. Rumsfeld  (Federal Circuit; 06-1080)
Decision Date: July 28, 2006
Summary judgment for the government on a contractor's claim that a part of the regulatory scheme of the Service Contract Act of 1965 required the government to compensate it for increases in the cost of providing its employees with a defined-benefit health plan is reversed where it was error to grant summary judgment in favor of the government, and an abuse of discretion to deny summary judgment to the contractor.
Doe v. Oberweis Dairy  (Seventh Circuit; 04-3680)
Decision Date: July 28, 2006
Summary judgment for defendant-employer in a sexual harassment case is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies; 2) defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on the question of how much oversight employers must exercise over shift supervisors; and 3) intervenors were entitled to protect their privacy interest in psychiatric records.
Hill v. Borough of Kutztown  (Third Circuit; 05-1356)
Decision Date: July 26, 2006
In a case involving allegations that a borough mayor's campaign of harassment, defamation and retaliation deprived an employee of his job and damaged his reputation and ability to earn a living, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint in its entirety is reversed in part as to: 1) a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 "stigma-plus" due process claim against the mayor to the extent the claim sought a name clearing hearing; 2) a "stigma-plus" due process claim against the borough; 3) First Amendment retaliation claims; and 4) Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and state law claims against the borough.
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 nonprofit organization that helps people understand, protect, and strengthen employee rights. Workplace Fairness wants to hear from you. Tell a friend about Workplace Week by clicking here.
© 2006 Workplace Fairness