The following article is a case study is a survey period of cases that were not handed down by the United States Supreme Court, rather than the cases that were decided. My article was written by Peter Reed Corbin and John E. Duvall. Both attorney and partners of the FordHarrison LLP, Jacksonville , Florida. This article cover significant cases in the area of employment discrimination law decided by the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit during 2014. The cases cover age discrimination in employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and 1871; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. One of the cases mentioned in their survey
…show more content…
discrimination. In order for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case in the Galdamez v. DHL Air Express, the plaintiff was in the protected category and alleged gender discrimination because she hurt her knee while working and asked for light-duty. Plaintiff was denied light-duty pursuant to Title VII. The trial court granted employers Summary Judgment because plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case The key word was “comparator”. Plaintiff argued that two male employees who had received light-duty assignments were valid comparators, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument because the male employees had different supervisors than the plaintiff and worked in different circumstances. In the Smith v.City of New Smyrna Beach, the plaintiff, a woman, worked as a firefighter and during the initial job interview in 2003, the city’s Fire Chief told plaintiff that he usually “only really hired men that hunt, fish, or camp” but he heard that plaintiff was a “pretty good ballplayer.” Plaintiff in the Smith case, she experienced similar comments throughout her employment until termination 2008. The City appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the …show more content…
Austal, regarding hostile work environment was very interested because plaintiff worked on shipyard in Mobile, Alabama wherein thirteen (13) plaintiffs alleged a racially hostile work environment at the ship yard. Plaintiff had worked there for approximately ten (10) years, with graffiti on the restroom walls, Confederate flags, and utterances of racial slurs. The District Court granted summary judgment or the defendants. On appeal the issue before the Court of appeals was whether a plaintiff could rely on evidence of racial harassment that he was not personally aware of in order to prove his claim. The key issue, the Court stated, “We now hold that that an employee alleging a hostile work environment cannot complain about conduct of which he was oblivious for the purpose of proving that his work environment was objectively hostile. Six out thirteen plaintiffs were able to prove hostile work
discrimination. In order for plaintiff to establish a prima facie case in the Galdamez v. DHL Air Express, the plaintiff was in the protected category and alleged gender discrimination because she hurt her knee while working and asked for light-duty. Plaintiff was denied light-duty pursuant to Title VII. The trial court granted employers Summary Judgment because plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case The key word was “comparator”. Plaintiff argued that two male employees who had received light-duty assignments were valid comparators, but the Court of Appeals rejected this argument because the male employees had different supervisors than the plaintiff and worked in different circumstances. In the Smith v.City of New Smyrna Beach, the plaintiff, a woman, worked as a firefighter and during the initial job interview in 2003, the city’s Fire Chief told plaintiff that he usually “only really hired men that hunt, fish, or camp” but he heard that plaintiff was a “pretty good ballplayer.” Plaintiff in the Smith case, she experienced similar comments throughout her employment until termination 2008. The City appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the …show more content…
Austal, regarding hostile work environment was very interested because plaintiff worked on shipyard in Mobile, Alabama wherein thirteen (13) plaintiffs alleged a racially hostile work environment at the ship yard. Plaintiff had worked there for approximately ten (10) years, with graffiti on the restroom walls, Confederate flags, and utterances of racial slurs. The District Court granted summary judgment or the defendants. On appeal the issue before the Court of appeals was whether a plaintiff could rely on evidence of racial harassment that he was not personally aware of in order to prove his claim. The key issue, the Court stated, “We now hold that that an employee alleging a hostile work environment cannot complain about conduct of which he was oblivious for the purpose of proving that his work environment was objectively hostile. Six out thirteen plaintiffs were able to prove hostile work