August 26, 2008

Agreement to Arbitrate USERRA Discrimination Claim is Enforceable

In Landis v. Pinnacle Eye Care, LLC, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an agreement to arbitrate claims is enforceable under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). Although the Sixth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over the courts of Georgia, and a lower-level federal court in Georgia has held to the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit has not yet weighed in on the issue, so the case may be relevant if the issue reaches the Eleventh Circuit.

In the case, Dr. Timothy Landis signed an employment agreement in which he agreed to resolve all disputes related to the agreement through arbitration. During his employment, he was called to military duty in Afghanistan as a member of the Indiana National Guard. Although he contended that the parties had amended the employment agreement prior to his departure for Afghanistan, there was no formal amendment to the agreement. On his return from active duty, the employer refused to honor the alleged revised agreement, demoted Landis, and threatened to fire him if he had any future involvement in the military.

In response, Landis filed an employment discrimination claim under the USERRA, claiming that his employer had discriminated against him based on his military service. The lower court granted the employer’s motion to stay the case and ordered that it be arbitrated based on the arbitration clause contained in the employment agreement, holding that the USERRA did not preempt the arbitration clause.

Continue reading "Agreement to Arbitrate USERRA Discrimination Claim is Enforceable" »

July 14, 2008

Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases after Exxon: The Death of Punies has been Greatly Exaggerated

The blawgosphere has been buzzing about the supposed death of punitive damages in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, in which the Court held that, as a matter of federal maritime law, the maximum amount of a defendant’s liability for punitive damages is equal to one times the amount of compensatory damages awarded.

The employment discrimination bar has been particularly concerned about Exxon’s impact in employment cases. For example, the Workplace Prof Blog notes that the 1:1 ratio “if applied to employment cases, would have devastating impact.”

We don’t believe that Exxon will have a significant impact on employment discrimination cases. First and perhaps most significant, the case is not controlling precedent in the employment discrimination context, as it was decided under federal maritime law, and the court relied heavily on state statutes in arriving at the 1:1 ratio. As neither of these sources of law has any bearing on employment discrimination law, the direct precedential effect of Exxon should be limited.

Continue reading "Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases after Exxon: The Death of Punies has been Greatly Exaggerated" »

May 2, 2008

House Passes Genetic Nondiscrimination Law

We recently wrote about the Senate’s passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, a federal law that would prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on the results of genetic tests and also prohibit health insurance companies from relying on the results of genetic tests in setting premium rates or making enrollment eligibility decisions.

The good news is that on May 1, 2008, the House got on board by passing an identical version of the bill, by a margin of 414-1, with the only dissenting vote coming from Texas Republican and former presidential candidate Ron Paul.

President Bush has already expressed his support for the law and is expected to sign it in the near future.

April 14, 2008

Military Veteran Need Not Pay Filing Fee to File Discrimination Case

Unfortunately, we’re seeing a lot of discrimination cases involving armed forces personnel these days. Under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), employers may not discriminate against active armed services personnel and veterans in employment, but unfortunately a lot of employers are ignoring the law. A recent case from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, although not from a Georgia court, is a good reminder of the rights of armed services personnel and veterans to be free from employment discrimination.

In Davis v. Advocate Health Center Patient Care Express, Advocate briefly employed Robert Davis, a Vietnam veteran, as an answering service agent in the spring of 2007. During his probationary period, Advocate fired Davis, and Davis in turn filed a federal discrimination case against Advocate under the USERRA, claiming that it fired him because of his prior military service. Davis also asked the court to waive the filing fee for his case, claiming that the USERRA excused him from having to pay such fees. The lower court disagreed with Davis, concluding that the statute did not waive fees because such an interpretation would encourage frivolous lawsuits.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with Davis and reversed the lower court, holding that Congress’s intent in enacting the statute was to waive the filing fee for covered service personnel. The court noted that his rule applies whether or not the individual can actually afford to pay the fee.

April 3, 2008

Genetic Employment Discrimination Bill Passes Senate

In a unanimous 95-0 vote, the U.S. Senate passed an anti-discrimination bill on April 24th that would prohibit employers from using genetic information in making employment-related decisions. The proposed law, known as the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, bars employers from using the results of an employee’s genetic test in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions and also prohibits health insurance companies from using genetic information in making enrollment or eligibility decisions or in setting premiums.

With the recent dramatic advances in genetic science, there are now more than 1,000 genetic tests available, but most employees do not take advantage of such tests for fear their employers will discriminate against them based on their test results. This fear could prevent millions of employees from taking genetic tests—tests that could help employees identify serious health conditions and allow them to seek out early intervention and treatment. If the law passes, employees will no longer need to fear retaliation from their employers, and they can get the testing and treatment they need.

The House is expected to pass the bill in the near future, and President Bush has already expressed his support for it. We’ll keep you posted.