Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast Eric Dreiband April 10, 2017
Are college job fairs and recruiting doomed as discriminatory activities? In February, a District Court in California ruled that job applicants could maintain a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) challenging the practice of recruiting entry-level workers mostly through a program available only to recent college graduates. But last October, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed en banc the dismissal of a case brought by an over-40 job seeker who alleged that the company engaged in age discrimination by using screening guidelines describing the “targeted candidate” as someone “2-3 years out of college” who “adjusts easily to changes,” and suggesting to avoid “applicants in sales for 8-10 years.” The two cases are Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2017 WL 661354 (N.D.Cal., 2017) and Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016) Petition for Certiorari Filed (NO. 16-971), Feb 02, 2017.
Eric S. Dreiband, a partner in the Washington office of Jones Day and former General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, shared his thoughts on these cases and took listener questions.
SCOTUScast 3-30-17 featuring Karen Harned
- Eric S. Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day
Karen Harned March 30, 2017
On February 21, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McLane Co. v. EEOC. Damiana Ochoa worked for McLane Company, a supply chain company. After returning from maternity leave, Ochoa was required to take a “physical abilities” test, which she failed three times. Ochoa was fired by McLane but then filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that McLane violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC opened up an investigation and issued a subpoena for information McLane withheld, including either “pedigree information” for each test-taker or reasons the test-taker’s employment was terminated. When McLane refused, EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action. The district court granted enforcement of the subpoena with respect to some information (such as the gender and score of each test taker) but declined to require the production of pedigree information or the reasons why others who had failed the test were terminated. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reviewing the district court’s decision “de novo,” held that the district court had erred in refusing to compel production of the pedigree information, and also needed to consider whether production of the reasons for other terminations would be unduly burdensome.
The question before the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do.
To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center. Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
Karen Harned February 23, 2017
In McLane v. EEOC the Supreme Court is being asked to resolve a circuit split regarding appellate court standard of review of district court decisions to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena.
Damiana Ochoa worked for McLane Company, a supply chain company. After returning from maternity leave, Ms. Ochoa was required to take a “physical abilities” test, which she failed three times. Subsequently, she was fired and Ms. Oschoa brought a gender discrimination claim against McLane. The district court denied part of one of the subpoenas EEOC issued to McLane. The 9th Circuit reversed, reviewing the district court’s decision to limit the scope of the EEOC subpoena “de novo,” which is contrary to the deferential review eight other appellate courts follow. The Supreme Court has been asked to resolve this circuit court split.
Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, attended oral argument and joined us to provide her impressions of argument, examine the case, and explore potential impacts of the upcoming decision on employers, employees, and the EEOC during this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call.
- Karen Harned, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center
Short video on the Sharing Economy
February 09, 2017
The sharing economy is changing the nature of work, yet it doesn’t fit clearly within laws governing labor and employment. In this short documentary, policy experts, lawyers, and sharing economy workers weigh in on the debate over "contractors v. employees" and what kind of protections workers need in this new economy. Labor and Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
In 1957, an article in the Stanford Law Review asked the question: can counties and cities pass right to work ordinances under the Taft-Hartley Amendments to the National Labor Relations Act? The law explicitly allowed states to prohibit "agency-shop" contracts, but did not clearly address subdivisions of states. This question of federal preemption was addressed by courts only three times in more than fifty years. In that time, twenty-six states have passed statewide right to work laws. But recently, Hardin County in Kentucky passed, and the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld, a local right-to-work ordinance. Consequently, this sleeper issue may be hugely important in "purple" states across the country.Our panel of labor law and federalism experts talked about the law and politics of local right to work laws.
- Mr. Andrew R. Kloster, Attorney, Washington, DC
- Mr. James Sherk, Research Fellow in Labor Economics, The Heritage Foundation
- Prof. Ariana R. Levinson, Professor of Law, University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law
- Moderator: Mr. Raymond J. LaJeunesse Jr., Vice President & Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation