Thursday, August 16, 2018
- HUD: Consistent with the Administration’s regulatory reform efforts, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is seeking public comment to assist it in amending its affirmatively furthering fair housing regulations to, in part, “minimize regulatory burden while more effectively aiding program participants to plan for fulfilling their obligation to affirmatively further the purposes and policies of the Fair Housing Act”
- Third Circuit: As a matter of first impression under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the accommodation of a disabled person’s request to be accompanied by her service animal is per se reasonable absent exceptional circumstances
- First Circuit: Summary judgment for university reversed on faculty member’s Title VII retaliation claim where evidence supported conclusion that faculty member voluntarily transferred to another department because dean misrepresented that she could continue to teach two of her chosen courses (she ended up being assigned remedial-level courses instead), and university offered no non-retaliatory explanation for the misrepresentation
- US District Court ME: In denying motion for summary judgment on employment discrimination claim, the court held, in part, that plaintiff with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma complaining to HR representative that his manager had called him “chemo brain” was protected activity even though he did not characterize it as “disability discrimination”; demotion coming two weeks later created sufficient “causal nexus” to prove unlawful retaliation; there was sufficient evidence that the demotion was also disability discrimination where manager’s treatment of him became highly critical around the time his chemotherapy started (despite lack of comparator evidence with non-disabled employees); and manager’s conduct was sufficiently severe to create an actionable hostile work environment
- Law Court: Discovery order by Superior Court Justice acting as medical malpractice screening panel chair that was subject to undecided motion for reconsideration and never acted upon by the parties held to be a nullity and therefore did not create the “law of the case”
- Maine Supreme Judicial Court: Adopted amendment to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 7(e), effective September 1, 2018, enlarges the deadline for filing a reply memorandum from 7 days to 14 days
- US Courts: Proposed amendment to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) would add the following language: “Before or promptly after the notice or subpoena is served, and continuing as necessary, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith about the number and description of the matters for examination and the identity of each person the organization will designate to testify”