Below is a review of the posts on Facebook and LinkedIn from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
The post on Sunday 1/26/2025 noted iconic Katz’s Delicatessen settles federal ADA lawsuit, agrees to fine and renovations. This post is actually a video. What happened? Katz’s has settled with the feds and agreed to a $20K fine for its alleged failure to accommodate diners with disabilities. For roe details, go to the post (and its embedded video).
TAKEAWAY: Remember the public accommodation portion of the ADA – it is broader than the employment context. Get assistance from a lawyer knowledgeable as to the accommodation process.
The post on Monday 1/27/2025 told us discipline for crying does not show sex or gender discrimination. Let’s fill out the facts. Melissa Anne Dancico worked for MLT Systems in human resources. Her complaint included Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation claims and FMLA interference and retaliation claims.
MLT moved to dismiss the Title VII retaliation and sex discrimination claims, arguing that Dancico had not alleged that she engaged in protected activity nor had she alleged any facts in support of her sex discrimination claim. Most of Dancico’s claimed protected activities relate to her informing MLT of a legal requirement – as required by her position – and then what she thought of as retaliation after that. That was a losing argument for her – see the post for the reason why. But Dancico also claimed that she was being retaliated against for attempting to properly investigate a complaint, i.e., how MLT was handling a sexual harassment claim. That fared better as to dismissal – again, the post explains why.
And then there is Dancico’s gender discrimination claim which is based on her allegation that she was written up for crying approximately five months before her termination (which she says is sex-stereotyping). The court turned that around on her – see the post. The court also noted that while Dancico admitted that she was emotional during the meeting, there was one crucial thing she could not and did not do – see the post. So she was out on gender discrimination too.
TAKEAWAY: Anyone can sue anyone, but there actually have to be facts to support a valid legal claim.
The post on Tuesday 1/28/2025 noted that foolish CEO quips, fishy termination mean pregnancy case will go to trial. Let’s jump right in.
The plaintiff in this case (who is called “Katy” in the post) was a VP of Operations and worked for the employer in that and other capacities for 20 years. She had gotten good evaluations, bonuses, and more. All good, right?
Well, in April 2019, Katy began in vitro fertilization treatment that failed. She told the CEO (called “Biff” in the post). Later that year Katy had another failed IVF procedure; Biff appeared supportive and made some accommodations for her during this time. Then, in December 2019, Katy decided to try IVF for a third time. She told Biff what was going on – details are in the post. Two members of Katy’s work team were pregnant. Sometime after Katy told Biff that she was going to give IVF another try, Biff visited Katy’s office suite and after looking at the pregnant workers and Katy, made the comment quoted in the post. Not long after, at a meeting that Katy attended, Biff made a comment to attendees; it too is quoted in the post. Biff admitted that he made both comments.
Query: was Biff teasing? He never said that he was teasing. If he was, then those 2 comments might not be a big deal, right? But the story is not over. In late January 2020, Katy was ready to start that third round of IVF treatments. She told Biff that she would be having a “procedure” the following day. Biff knew that meant an IVF procedure.
Right after that January conversation, the other VP of Operations (whom the post calls “Henry”) said that he’d been receiving a lot of complaints about Katy. The gist of the complaints is noted in the post. As to some of the complaints, there were legitimate reasons. The HR Director got details of the complaints from Henry, documented it all, and shared it all with Biff. It appears that nobody (not Biff, not Henry, not HR, not anyone else) followed up with Katy to get her side of the story. No, Biff just fired her. That was about 2 weeks after Katy mentioned her upcoming 3rd IVF procedure.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was not yet enacted, so Katy sued for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII. The employer asked the court to dismiss the case because (1) Biff’s quips were just “stray remarks” about which Katy had never complained, and (2) Katy’s poor performance justified termination.
What the “stray remarks” legal doctrine is and how it applied here is all detailed in the post. The end result was that the court and jury could consider those remarks as evidence that Biff had an issue with pregnant employees. There is a lesson here for supervisors and managers (see the post).
And what about Katy’s termination based on the alleged poor performance? Well, the timing was suspicious (if you are not sure why, see the post). But what if it was merely coincidental, or even if it was true, would that be grounds for termination? Without warning and an opportunity to improve?
Oh but there’s more. Katy had asked for the specific reasons for her termination. What Biff told her is quoted in the post. Nothing more than that. But when Katy’s attorney took Biff’s deposition in the lawsuit, Biff provided plenty of specifics. That looked fishy to the court.
More lessons for managers and supervisors: the “pregnancy” in “pregnancy discrimination” includes much more than the nine months of an uncomplicated pregnancy. What else it can include is listed in the post. And if the PWFA had been in effect then Katy might have had a valid claim (see the post for the reasoning there).
But this was all just the summary judgment stage. Who knows what will happen at trial (if it doesn’t settle before that).
TAKEAWAY: Employers, follow the roadmap in this case – train your employees on what they can and cannot say and do – and follow those directions yourself. Even a good employment lawyer can’t get you out of every hole you might dig for yourself.
The post on Wednesday 1/29/2025 told us condo association sues duck-feeding resident. You read that right. If you feed the ducks, we’re going to sue you was the warning being carried out by the Boca Terrace Condominium Association against owner Lois Bleke. What the association says she is doing is quoted in the post.
Grab a beverage, this might take a while. According to the complaint, the condo association first sued Bleke in 2022 seeking injunctive relief and to enforce a previous order obtained during arbitration. Allegedly an agreement had been reached, but Bleke refused to live up to what she had agreed to (which is in the post). Aargh.
TAKEAWAY: If you agree to settle, then settle. Otherwise, you will be in even deeper and the association won’t let go – meaning the fees you are on the hook for will probably only increase.
In the post on Thursday 1/30/2025, we read about New Year’s resolutions for condo and HOA board members: setting up the community for success. The new year is a great time to look back at what was done the prior year and plan for the future. The post contains a few resolutions to help guide boards and their communities toward success.
First, assess existing service provider contracts. Why? To ensure competitive rates and proper scope of services. Some areas where this is especially important are listed in the post.
Next, review insurance policies. Risk management must be a top priority. Things to look at and discuss with association counsel and an insurance agent are listed in the post.
Third, enhance communications. There is no question but that when residents feel heard and informed, it creates a sense of connection and trust. Sone suggested ways to do this are in the post.
Four other tips are also in the post along with details of how they might be implemented. All are important to maintaining a good, solid and engaged board.
TAKEAWAY: Boards should always be looking for ways they can improve what the Association does for the community. A good community association lawyer might also have ideas.
The post on Friday 1/31/2025 told us that Prosero Management and Prestigious Placement to pay $215K in EEOC harassment and retaliation suit settlement. So what happened?
According to the EEOC’s suit, a male lead employed by Prosero subjected female employees placed by Prestigious Placement to unwelcome sexual comments. When two of the female employees complained to supervisors, they were ignored. Later, Prosero terminated the employees for alleged performance issues. The statutory violations claimed are noted in the post. The EEOC sued in federal court in Tennessee in 2023 when conciliation failed. But the monetary relief is not all – Prosero and Prestigious agreed to other non-monetary relief that is detailed in the post. That might be almost more important than the dollars … The EEOC’s statement is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: when employees complain, don’t stick your head in the sand, actually listen, investigate, and take whatever action is warranted. Definitely do not retaliate against the employees who complained.
Finally, in the post yesterday 2/1/2025, we were reminded that equal pay appeal by US Women’s National Soccer players set for March 7. Oral arguments will be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California. The judges who will hear the argument will be identified about a week ahead of time.
Remember that players led by Alex Morgan sued the US Soccer Federation in March 2019, alleging they have not been paid equitably under their collective bargaining agreement as compared with what the men’s team receives under its agreement (which expired in December 2018). How much the women request in damages and interest, and the statutes under which they brought the suit, is all in the post.
In May 2002 the District Court Judge (in Los Angeles) granted summary judgment to the Federation on the pay claim. The basis for that ruling is detailed in the post. But he allowed their allegation of discriminatory working conditions to go to trial and subsequently the parties reached a settlement on that claim.
What the Federation said is going on now with the women’s and men’s contracts is in the post. And the women’s union and Federation recently agreed to extend their labor contract by three months through March.
TAKEAWAY: Often court cases can take years to wind their way through the system – but settlements do happen and rulings can teach us all something (reinforcing that the facts must be applied to the law).
York, Pennsylvania 17403