Posts by Thaddeus A. Harrell

Thaddeus A. Harrell

Associate

312-704-3000

Thaddeus Harrell is a labor and employment attorney who protects employer's interests. He advises employers on all aspects of the employment …

Showing 9 posts by Thaddeus A. Harrell.

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Legal Standard in Evaluating Similarly Situated Individuals

March 27, 2019 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

For years, advocates in the Eleventh Circuit have expressed confusion over the term "similarly situated" when addressing claims of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. In a rare move, the Eleventh Circuit sought to clear up "the mess" it had created through prior circuit court decisions. As a result of the Court's findings, employers—particularly those in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida—will have more clarity when evaluating possible discrimination claims. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Discrimination, Eleventh Circuit, Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, McDonnell Douglas, Similarly Situated

U.S. Supreme Court Puts the Brakes on Mandatory Arbitration, Holds Transportation Workers Exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act

January 18, 2019 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

The United States Supreme Court recently handed workers a rare victory in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira. The Supreme Court ruled that transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce—including those labeled as independent contractors—are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and thus cannot be compelled to undergo mandatory arbitration. As a result of this decision, employers in the transportation industry will have to review their existing arbitration policies and assess whether or not they comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Arbitration, Class Action, FAA, Federal Arbitration Act, Mandatory Arbitration, Transportation Industry, United States Supreme Court

Trust the Process: Relying on Existing Law or Policy is not an ADA Defense Says Third Circuit

June 25, 2018 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, Accommodation, ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act, Disability, Disability & Medical Leave, Disability Discrimination, Employer Policy, Flu Shot, Interactive Process, Perceived Disability, Policy, Restrictions, Third Circuit, Vaccination, Vaccine Requirement

In Victory for Employers, NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Joint Employment Test

December 19, 2017 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

On December 14, 2017, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) overruled the standard for joint employment set forth in Browning-Ferris and returned to longstanding, prior principles governing the determination of joint-employer status. With a new majority, the Board held “joint-employer status shall once again require proof that putative joint employer entities have exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having “reserved” the right to exercise control); the control must be “direct and immediate” (rather than indirect), and joint-employer status will not result from control that is “limited and routine.” The Board made clear it intended to align the determination of joint-employer status with the holdings of numerous federal and state courts. Although finding Browning-Ferris well-intentioned, the Board identified five fundamental flaws that warranted reversal. The Board’s decision is being widely viewed as a victory for employers as it removes ambiguities related to control and clarifies the standard for determining joint employment. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Browning-Ferris, Direct and Immediate, Essential Employment Terms, Joint Control, Joint Employers, Joint Employment, National Labor Relations Act, National Labor Relations Board, NLRA, NLRB, Right to Control

Florida Increasing State Minimum Wage by Two Percent

October 19, 2017 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

While advocates across the country continue to demand states increase their minimum wage to $15.00 per hour, Florida decided to forgo large scale reform and increase its minimum wage by only two percent. Effective January 1, 2018, Florida’s minimum wage will increase by 15 cents from $8.10 to $8.25 per hour. Florida’s minimum wage for tipped employees will also increase by 15 cents from $5.08 to $5.23 per hour. To put this in perspective, a year earlier, Florida increased its minimum wage by five cents from $8.05 to $8.10 per hour, while tipped employees received an increase from $5.03 to $5.08 per hour. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Department of Economic Opportunity, Florida, Minimum Wage, Wage and Hour, Wages

EEOC Issues New Guidance on National Origin Discrimination

November 29, 2016 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

On November 21, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidelines regarding national origin discrimination. Since 2002, the EEOC has observed significant legal developments addressing national origin discrimination, warranting the need to replace its earlier guidelines. In 2015, approximately 11 percent of the 89,385 private sector charges filed with EEOC alleged national origin discrimination. These charges included unlawful failures to hire, unlawful terminations, harassment and language-related policies. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Origin Discrimination, Title VII, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

NY Transit Agencies Escape Vicarious Liability for Contractors Alleged Discrimination

April 28, 2016 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

It is not uncommon for companies to contract their daily business operations to third-party companies. In Motta et al v. Global Contact Services, Inc., the court addressed whether such relationships relieve the outsourcing company of any duties to address discrimination or harassment in the workplace. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Discrimination, Discrimination and Harassment, Gender Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Independent Contractors, Race Discrimination, Racial Harassment, Retaliation, Sex Discrimination, Wages

Fourth Circuit Finds EEOC's Expert Report Unreliable Under Federal Rules of Evidence

February 28, 2015 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

As part of an employer's business in providing integrated services for high level events, it commenced background checks of all prospective employees, including credit checks for positions dealing with "credit sensitive" information. An employee who was denied a position based on the employer's credit filed suit with the EEOC. The EEOC later issued a letter of determination that the employer's background and credit checks violated Title VII. The claim was later amended to state the background and credit checks also had a disparate impact on black applicants. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: EEOC, Expert

Court Vacates Summary Judgment Regarding Sex Discrimination and BFOQ Stating Reasons for Implementation were Arbitrary

July 30, 2014 by Thaddeus A. Harrell

Male sheriff's deputies were denied the right to supervise female-only housing within the city and county of San Francisco correctional facility. The policy, which was in effect since 2006, was put in place for the safety of the female inmates, as well as to curtail the sexual misconduct of the past. A group of sheriff's filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco alleging that the policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in housing units of jails operated by the County violated Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. More ›

| Email | Print | Topics: Sex Discrimination

Search

Subscribe via Email

Subscribe to this blog's feed