Tuesday, December 21, 2021
- Tenth Circuit: Adopting an “objective reasonableness inquiry that considers the law against what a reasonable employee would believe, not ‘what a reasonable labor and employment attorney would believe,'” the court held that the Title VII anti-retaliation provision covered an employee’s internal report of alleged harassment against two native Filipino employees based in the Philippines despite the fact that Title VII specifically excludes coverage of “aliens outside any State” because a “reasonable employee likely knows that discrimination based on race and/or national origin is unlawful, but is likely unfamiliar with Title VII’s statutory exceptions [and] such an employee should not be charged with such specialized legal knowledge”
- EEOC: Section N. added to its COVID-19 technical assistance document clarifies the circumstances in which COVID-19 may or may not meet the definition of a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, including that someone with COVID-19 who is asymptomatic or has mild symptoms similar to the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks—with no other consequences—will not be substantially limited in a major life activity for purposes of the actual disability prong; but a person is protected from being fired, not hired, or harassed under the “regarded as” prong if the person has COVID-19 or an employer mistakenly believes the person has COVID-19, even with minor symptoms, if the symptoms were expected to last more than six months
- US District Court ME: Pregnancy discrimination allegation under the Maine Human Rights Act (“MHRA”) dismissed where former employee alleged she was terminated because she missed work after giving birth but did not allege that a non-pregnant employee would have been allowed to take similar time off because the MHRA does not require employers to provide maternity leave as a reasonable accommodation absent a showing of differential treatment; but negligent misrepresentation allegation may proceed where employee alleged that employer, without exercising reasonable care, falsely assured her during interview that she would be eligible for maternity leave and she accepted the position in reliance on this false information
- Law Court: Despite fact that the Workers’ Compensation Act of 1992 defines “employer” to include its insurer, the injury notice provision in the Act (requiring an employee to give notice to her “employer” within 30 days after the date of injury in the instant case) does not require that notice be provided to the employer’s insurer when the employer is no longer in existence
- First Circuit: Section 1983 claim dismissed against private parties under contract with public housing department to manage housing department’s low-income housing project because plaintiff did not plausibly allege that the private parties were performing a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state
- MHRC: Minutes of December 13th Commission meeting posted
- MHRC: January 10th Commission meeting Agenda posted
