Happy new year, everybody! Although I've been on
vacation, the news never sleeps, and the Mayans were wrong. Accordingly, I have
a few items to catch you up on.
"Near occasion of sin" is a
legitimate ground for termination, Iowa court says.
You've probably already heard about this one because it has received quite a
bit of coverage elsewhere. The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled
that it is not sex discrimination for a male business owner to fire a female
employee because he (or his wife) is afraid he may succumb to her charms. The
owner, a dentist, had an all-female staff but was suspiciously chummy with
one of his assistants. His wife also worked for him, and her "spider
sense" began tingling. Wife became upset. Clergy became involved. Dentist
eventually fired assistant while minister stood by. (Probably to make sure he
went through with it.)
The terminated assistant sued, contending that she was a
victim of sex discrimination under Iowa law. The court has a thoughtful
and nuanced discussion but found in this case that the termination was simply
the reverse of "sexual favoritism," which most courts find legal . .
. albeit perhaps unfair. My quick summary: The consequences of a sexual
relationship -- whether good or bad -- generally do not create liability for
the employer if sexual harassment is not involved. In other words, as long as the
relationship is consensual, you are usually out of luck whether the boss is
favoring the one he loves instead of you, or whether he fires you because
you're the one he loves. (The masculine shall be deemed to include the
feminine, and vice versa.)
Emails sent through employer's system lose
marital privilege. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
the bribery conviction of a politician who was convicted in large part
based on incriminating emails he'd sent to his wife through his employer's
email system. The court said that use of an employer's email system (and
computer) was equivalent to dictating to a stenographer a communication for
one's spouse, which the Supreme Court held in 1934 also waived the privilege.
The Fourth Circuit decision should also apply in employment litigation.
*The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit hears appeals from federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
No lactation accommodation retaliation where
employee didn't make "complaint." An employee was
fired not long after she had asked about where she could express breast milk at
an office that she was going to be visiting. (The employer had accommodated her
need to express without any problems for quite some time before.) She sued
for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act's "lactation
accommodation" requirements, but a federal court in Florida issued
judgment for the employer, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit* affirmed. To have a valid
claim for retaliation under the FLSA, the appeals court said, the employee had
to make a complaint that could reasonably be viewed by the employer as a
grievance asserting rights under the FLSA. Because asking where she could
express milk was not a "complaint," her retaliation claim failed. She
also didn't have a valid "interference" claim because such a claim
does not exist under the FLSA, the court said.
*The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit hears appeals from federal courts in the states of Alabama, Florida,
U.S. Department of Labor updates
its 2012 regulatory agenda. Affirmative action requirements for
veterans, FLSA as applied to home health care workers, Affordable Care Act
rules, and more!
Belated blog carnival!
Forgive me for being so late with this (is it ok since we're still in the 12
Days of Christmas?), but Mark Toth of The Employment Blawg hosted the December
Employment Law Blog Carnival, featuring a post by me as well as numerous
outstanding posts by other bloggers. Please pay Mark a visit if you have not
already done so!
Visit the Employment and
Labor Law Insider for additional insights from Robin Shea, a partner with the national labor and
employment law firm Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP.
For more information about LexisNexis products
and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.