Florida Employment Lawyer Blog

The University of Florida and Oxford University have been sued, in New Jersey, for violating Title VII and other federal and state laws by a former African-American professor denied tenure. The Daily Business Review has a good story here detailing the case's awkward history -- including a dismissed federal case in Florida, a second dismissed case that was orginally filed in New Jersey and then transferred to Gainesville, and now this third federal lawsuit, filed in New Jersey but with different counsel.

"Denied tenure" cases are pretty common but terribly difficult to win. Universities are given great latitude in deciding who is granted tenure and who is not and it is difficult for a plaintiff to show that, had it not been for her race or sex, she would have been granted tenure. Most colleges promote diversity and go out of their way to hire and promote minority professors. In fact, from a purely objective and documentable perspective, it is almost easier for a white, male professor to show that he was passed over for tenure in favor a minority professor. At least the university would (or likely should) have a documented policy of recruiting and hiring minorities. No company has a documented policy of recruiting white men.

The most interesting aspect of this case is that, according to the complaint, the EEOC found "reasonable cause" to believe that the University of Florida violating Title VII. This is extremely rare and the EEOC finding is admissible in court as evidence. Stay tuned...

The lawsuit is here:

Russell-Brown v Univ Florida Discrimination Lawsuit

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act places liability on an employer who fails to take appropriate corrective action when female employees are being sexually harassed by co-workers, supervisors, and third-parties who are not employed by the offending employer. For example, if a company has a regular UPS or FedEx deliveryman who makes offensive jokes or engages in offensive conduct while on the employer's premises, female employees are well within their rights to complain to management that it needs to stop the conduct by the UPS driver. The fact that the UPS driver does not work for the employer is wholly irrelevant to the analysis. Failure to stop the sexually hostile environment is illegal, no matter the cause of the sexually hostile environment.

In Beckford v. Florida Department of Corrections, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of female correctional officers who were sexually harassed by inmates. This is the first time the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed liability premised on sexual harassment by inmates. Other circuits have made similar conclusions regarding inmates. The Department of Corrections argued that prisons should be exempt from Title VII because of the unique nature of prisons and inmates. The Court categorically rejected the Department's argument and held that prisons are no different from other employers. The Department knew that female officers were complaining about gender based abuse from inmates, but the Department did nothing to remedy the situation.

Beckford is also important because it reaffirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide that the use of certain words, including cunt, bitch, whore and slut, are inherently gender based.

The unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Pryor, is here:

Questions about sexual harassment? Contact an experienced employment attorney before you quit and before you lose your rights.

The Miami Herald has excellent coverage of Jackson Memorial Hospital's decision to lay off 4,500 employees by early May as part of major cost-cutting moves. The struggling Miami-based hospital, which is technically owned by Miami-Dade County, is also closing two hospitals -- JMH North and JMH South.

Some of the employees are unionized (mostly through SEIU) and many are not. It is unclear how JMH will decide who to terminate. Employed by the Public Health Trust? Are you in danger of being downsized? Contact an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible to learn and protect your rights.

In a lengthy, 53 page opinion, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in large part, a jury verdict against the Alabama Department of Transportation. The plaintiff, a black employee, alleged that she was repeatedly denied various promotions on account of her race. The jury agreed and the court agreed with the jury on several, not not all of the claims. What makes the case so interesting is that the court went to great lengths to explain the history of racism in Alabama state agencies and that black state employees are still feeling the lingering effects of decades old bigotry.

The court also affirmed the trial court's granting of injunctive relief -- i.e., the plaintiff was reinstated to a sufficiently senior position that would compensate her for the years of lost promotions. Public employees, unlike private employees, are likely to be reinstated or promoted by court order.

The opinion is here:
Opinion

Do you work for Florida, Miami-Dade County, the City of West Palm Beach? Contact an employment lawyer experienced with suing state agencies.

Federal and state law protect against discrimination in the workplace against members of the United States active armed forces, the reserves and the national guard. If you're contemplating joining the active military or the reserves, you need to know that in most cases your employer cannot discriminate or retaliate against you for your honorable decision. Employers cannot refuse to hire a reservist because reserve training would interfere with the workplace.

With hundreds of thousands of active, reserve and guard members called to active service to fight in Iraq and Afganistan (and to help in Haiti), it is no wonder why USERRA lawsuits are on the rise. This past week the U.S. Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with prestigious technology company MasTec. According to the press release, MasTec promoted another employee to a position held by an Army reservist while the Army reservist was in active military service. This is illegal -- a member of the military has a right to the same or equivalent position when he or she returns to work from active military duty.

Most USERRA claims go unresolved because many members of the armed forces are unaware of their USERRA rights, are too embarrased or stubborn to do anything about it, or the financial damages are too low for many lawyers to take on the case. The MasTec settlement, worth about $6,000, is a perfect example of a case where liability is clear, but the money is small. (And the Blog commends the DOJ for taking the case!) Contact an experienced USERRA lawyer before you leave for active duty and before your employer has an opportunity to terminate or threaten you. Prevention is the best medicine to avoiding a USERRA problem.

According to a newly filed lawsuit, the federal air marshals that protect against terrorist acts in the sky are subject to a racially insensitive and hostile work environment. There are over 3,000 federal air marshals but apparently the friendly skies are not as friendly as you might think. Many air marshals - including several based in Miami and Orlando - are claiming to have been the victim of employment discrimination and of being forced to work in a hostile environment.

One would think that the federal government does a fantastic job at preventing workplace disrimination, but all too often government officials and agencies look the other way and allow a hostile environment to foster and linger. Most federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws protect government and public-section employees just as strongly as they protect private employees. If you work for the State of Florida, a municipality within Florida, or a federal agency, it is imperitive that you contact an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible, and preferably while you remain employed.