Employment Law (Mine)

Front 1

Prior to a conditional offer, a prospective boss may not solicit info about disabilities.

Back 1

Harrison

Front 2

Gov. may require current e'ees to submit to background checks.

Back 2

NASA v. Nelson

Front 3

If an e'er has constructive notice that an e'ee is an illegal alien, they have cause to fire the e'ee. But no-match letters from the SSA does not create constructive notice.

Back 3

Aramark

Front 4

Negligent hiring is possible (trucker rapist) as well as negligent supervision

Back 4

Malorney

Front 5

Pharmaceutical reps who obtain non-binding commitments from doctors still fall under the outside sales exception.

Back 5

Christopher v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.

Front 6

No FLSA violation where interns were not paid but received credit and were the primary beneficiaries.

Back 6

Kaplan v. Code Blue Billing

Front 7

“Principal activities” = “all activities which are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activities”

This includes donning and doffing of protective gear.

Back 7

IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez.

Front 8

Wage discrepancy was based on the market rates, and there was no single discriminatory practice, so no Title VII liability.

Back 8

AFSCME v. Washington

Front 9

An e’ee cannot unilaterally waive the spouse’s right to notice of COBRA coverage.

Back 9

McDowell v. Krawchison

Front 10

Leave taken to accompanying e'ee's mom to Las Vegas for an end-of-life vacation was protected under FMLA.

Back 10

Ballard

Front 11

Being short sighted--needing glasses--was not a protected disability, so airline was not in violation of ADA.

Back 11

Sutton

Front 12

For ADEA claims, pl. must show but for causation.

Back 12

Gross

Front 13

Disparate impact theory is available for ADEA claims.

Back 13

Smith v. City of Jackson

Front 14

Pl. must allege specific e'm't practices for Title VII claims. (Overturned by Civil Rights Act of 1991, but still applies to ADEA.)

Back 14

Wards Cove

Front 15

Civil Rights Activist who blocked traffic illegally was fired.

Created framework for basic Title VII framework.

Back 15

McDonnell Douglas

Front 16

Clarified the ultimate standard for the McDonnel Douglas process: “ultimate burden of persuading ... that the def. intentionally discriminated … remains always w/ the plaintiff.”

Back 16

Burndine

Front 17

Mixed Motive Analysis

Back 17

Price Waterhouse

Front 18

Lineage of direct evidence issue

Back 18

O’Connor’s opinion → Civil Rights Act of 1991 → judges still deferred to O'Connor's → Desert Palace.

Front 19

“Cat’s paw” discrimination cause of action affirmed.

Back 19

Straub

Front 20

Romantically motivated favoritism toward a female subordinate is not sex discrimination. It is not “because of . . . sex.”

Back 20

Preston

Front 21

All female e’ees suing to recover for the effect of general bias identified no ‘specific employment practice.

Back 21

WalMart v. Dukes

Front 22

Applicants may lie about marital status, race, union membership, etc., if illegally requested, but if they freely reveal it, e'er is free to fire them if they have lied.

Back 22

Lysak

Front 23

Origin of disparate impact--policy requiring HS diploma or passing a standardized IQ test for certain positions must be job-related.

Back 23

Griggs

Front 24

Griggs burden shifting process

Back 24

Prima Facie Case: show that a policy has a disparate adverse impact on a protected class (⅘ rule--20% discrepancy; EEOC guidelines); burden shifts to employer to show job related; burden shifts back to e’ee to show that there was some other policy that could accomplish the same goal without a disparate impact.

Front 25

Mostly Koreans hired by Korean owner of janitorial services company. “Word of mouth recruiting does not compel an inference of intentional discrimination" where it is the cheapest method of recruitment.

Back 25

EEOC v. Consolidated Service Systems

Front 26

EEOC sues def. for using the same credit check the EEOC uses--and in the process, it uses expert testimony that fails under the Daubert factors, based on (get this) a panel’s race rating of colored photos.

Back 26

EEOC v. Kaplan

Front 27

Religious exception cases

Back 27

Amos

Hosanna Tabor

Front 28

Only sexy females hired as flight attendants: Title VII violation.

Back 28

Wilson

Front 29

Fire the ugly one and “get me one who looks like that.” Pl. refused w/out saying why. Pl. was fired. Whistleblower protections applied.

Back 29

Yanowitz

Front 30

“Materially adverse e’m’t action” includes anything that would deter a reasonable e’ee from taking protected activities--such as reassignment to less preferable duties.

Back 30

Burlington

Front 31

Ultimately, pl. must show but-for causation to prevail in retaliation claim.

Back 31

Nassar

Front 32

Guy who stormed out of the meeting w/ the Gideons. Claimed religious discrimination, but he never explained why he has a religious objection.

Back 32

Reed

Front 33

Hair-grooming standards for male police officers no violation of 1st Am rights.

Back 33

Kelley v. Johnson

Front 34

"Personal best” policy required women to wear makeup; this conflicted w/e'ee's self-image BUT no unequal burden of men vs. woman, so no liability.

Back 34

Jespersen

Front 35

Constructive discharge case (horrible police supervisors), F/E defense available if no tangible e'm't action.

Back 35

Suders

Front 36

[[Tangible e’m’t action??] includes anything that would be reasonably perceived to be hostile or abusive--need not be psychologically damaging.

Back 36

Harris

Front 37

Same-sex sexual harassment is actionable: the statute prohibits “discrimination … because of … sex.

Back 37

Oncale

Front 38

K-Mart strip search: tort of outrageous conduct can apply to employer even absent wrongful purpose b/c when e’er’s conduct is beyond the limits of social toleration, e’er breaches a duty to e’ee by being reckless of the effect on her

Back 38

Bodewig

Front 39

Hidden camera in semi-private office; tort of intrusion

Back 39

Hernandez

Front 40

sexting dude had notice that his phone was subject to auditing: no reasonable expectation of privacy

Back 40

Quon

Front 41

Catholic teacher fired for her pro-choice advocacy; tried to claim gender discrimination and retaliation, but such advocacy is not an activity protected under Title VI.

Back 41

Curay-Cramer

Front 42

Pl. could rely on IBM’s internal policy--and so could not be fired for dating a rival.

Back 42

Rulon Miller

Front 43

Upheld a discharge based on romantic involvement with a supervisor that was against a clearly-expressed internal policy.

Back 43

Barbee

Front 44

pregnant lady fired pursuant to role model rule; BFOQ

Back 44

Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club

Front 45

Protected activity includes reporting activities which e’ee reasonably believes to be illegal / wrong, in light of e’ee’s training and experience. No such reasonable belief here.

Back 45

Bard

Front 46

Acts that protect and reward reporting of financial wrongdoing.

Back 46

Sarbanes-Oxley Act;

Dodd-Frank Act

Front 47

Implied Contract case

Back 47

Pugh