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 12/29/2024 noted Lizzo dismissed from wardrobe assistant’s harassment lawsuit. Yep, legalities matter. Lizzo won a key ruling in her ongoing legal battle with a wardrobe stylist who claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the singer’s 2023 European tour. Let’s take a closer look.
A federal judge ruled that plaintiff Asha Daniels has no standing to sue Lizzo as an individual after identifying her touring and payroll companies as the employers. The judge dismissed all seven causes of action against Lizzo and said Daniels can’t try again. Lizzo’s tour manager also was dismissed from the suit, but Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. remains a defendant. Daniel’s lawyer said that since Lizzo’s company was not dismissed, she and her tour manager will still be deposed. The statement by Lizzo’s lawyer as to her and some other (corporate) defendants is in the post.
Daniels filed her suit in Sept. 2023, alleging that the atmosphere on Lizzo’s tour subjected her to “racist and fat phobic comments,” sexual harassment, and disability discrimination. One specific instance she included in her suit is noted in the post. Lizzo’s lawyers described Daniels as a “disgruntled” employee with “meritless and salacious” claims.
Daniels is not the only one to have filed suit against Lizzo – see the post for more sexual harassment and hostile workplace environment allegations – and Lizzo’s one-time reaction (showing a lack of thick skin). And what’s happening in the other suit? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: It doesn’t matter how famous someone is, the law still applies.
The post on Monday 12/30/2024 told us appeals court rules interview notes defeat worker’s retaliation claim. Yep, this is a roadmap for employers. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (which governs cases from Pennsylvania) affirmed a district (trial) court ruling against a worker who charged her employer, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., with discrimination and retaliation after she was passed over for at least four promotions. The worker, a Black woman, lost out on two promotions to White men and two others to the same person, another Black woman. The 3rd Circuit found no evidence of discrimination. Its reasoning is in the post. The Court also dismissed the worker’s argument that she had been retaliated against when she was given a “subjective” lower interview score. What the Court said in ruling against her is in the post.
So now let’s look at the roadmap. The court noted several things about the interview process that shielded the employer from the worker’s claims. First, the interview questions were job-related, touching on interviewees’ technical knowledge, general competency and communications skills. There was no evidence the interviewers injected subjective criteria, but rather all candidates were asked the same questions and ranked according to the same criteria. The court also mentioned specifics about at least one of the worker’s interviews – see the post. All interviewers also submitted their notes to the Court. That was important for the reason noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Another example of how document, document, document holds true as long as the documentation contains appropriate and sufficient detail. Talk to an employment lawyer about the contents of your documents.
The posts on Tuesday 12/31/2024, here and here, wished you a Happy New Year 2025! We said goodbye to 2024 and welcomed the new year. There was also a timely reminder about (New Year’s) party noise in your municipality or condominium or homeowners’ association – see the post.
TAKEAWAY: Holidays are for celebrating, but within any restrictions by your condo or HOA.
The post on Wednesday 1/1/2025 reminded us that the $35K overtime salary threshold is back in effect. Yes, another seesaw in the employment world. This past November a federal judge ruled that the Department of Labor’s 2024 rule exceeded its authority and is unlawful. Let’s dive deeper.
A federal judge in Texas struck down DOL’s recently expanded overtime rule nationwide, thus taking away overtime eligibility from an estimated 1 million workers. The basis on which the judge decided that the 2024 Rule exceeded DOL’s authority is in the post. The decision leaves the threshold at which workers qualify for overtime at $35,568. This ruling is from the same judge who had granted a preliminary injunction in the case only days before the rule was initially to become effective.
Ok, you know that the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay employees overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week, but there is an exemption for some executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) workers. Criteria for the exemption are listed in the post. The judge decided that by setting the salary threshold as high as it did, DOL created a “de facto ‘salary only’ test for the EAP exemption” which exceeded DOL’s authority. And there was at least one other effect of the rule being stayed – see the post.
But before you rescind any changes you made after the July 1 threshold increase, make sure you are in the clear. Do what is suggested in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Know how to properly pay your workers – get assistance from an employment lawyer if needed.
In the post on Thursday 1/2/2025, we saw the EEOC claims a ride share service failed to hire, accommodate hearing-impaired driver candidates. Another good reminder not to presume anything about an individual’s capabilities.
The EEOC filed suit in early December alleging that ride-hailing company Alto Experience, Inc., failed to hire at least 20 qualified deaf and hard-of-hearing candidates as personal drivers and failed to provide accommodations to qualified individuals with hearing disabilities. More details on the allegations of failure to accommodate under the ADA are in the post.
The EEOC’s complaint alleged that Alto could have explored a number of accommodations that would have allowed deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to complete the essential job functions of a personal driver. It gave an example of one policy and how the company could have accommodated the deaf or hard-of-hearing applicants. See the post.
The move to decentralized (and remote) work in the past few years has spotlighted the need for accommodation of workers with visual and hearing disabilities. The Job Accommodation Network maintains a list of potential accommodations – see the post.
This is not the EEOC’s first rodeo as to this type of ADA violation. It previously pursued litigation on behalf of a truck driving job candidate who was allegedly denied the position because he was deaf. That resulted in a $36 million jury verdict for the job applicant. And in July 2024 the EEOC inked a more than $1 million settlement with a nonprofit government contractor – the allegations in that suit are noted in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t assume a worker cannot do the job or needs accommodation – wait until you are asked or have reason to know of the need for accommodation
The post on Friday 1/3/2025 explained the cost, delays in condo repair project have residents asking court to take control. How bad is it? A group of condo owners is pushing back on plans for an $8 million safety repair project, alleging that the board has so mismanaged the work that a court-appointed receiver needs to take control of the community.
What is at issue? A concrete restoration project at Seagate of Gulfstream, a 50-year-old, five-building community in FL that consists of 360 condominiums. Each of the buildings is four stories (which is important).
A state law adopted in response to the June 2021 tragic Surfside Tower collapse now requires safety inspections and fully-funded reserves. The law applies to buildings that are three stories or more in height. The breadth of the law’s effect is discussed in the post.
Here a group of owners at Seagate were so upset over the cost of the repair work and how it was being done that they create a limited liability corporation called “The Concerned Owners of Seagate of Gulfstream.” Then they hired a lawyer and filed suit in state court with allegations against the association’s engineer and contractor – see the post for details. They allege in the suit that as a result of what has (or has not) happened, many owners have had to cope for months with the removal of “screens, hurricane shutters, windows, sliding glass doors, and floor coverings.” One member of the plaintiff LLC agreed that some of the lanais needed to be boarded while work was being done on the concrete. But it doesn’t end there – see the post. The same person said that more than half of the 360 units have joined the owners’ group. She also noted that result of an effort to recall members from the board this past year – see the post for those details. The suit goes beyond the work itself and extends to the underlying contracts – the post contains more details on that.
We usually say that something is not the first rodeo, but this actually may be the first rodeo in this legal area. The state law requires initial safety inspection reports to have been completed by Dec. 31, 2024. But that may be a change in 2025 – see the post.
The complaint alleged that there is a reason that the project is seemingly endless – it identifies the reason (see the post) and the players: FirstService, U.P.E., and Waterfront Services. The latter was hired to do the concrete restoration. UPE was hired to oversee the work, and FirstService Residential is the management company. Comments from the condo association or other players? See the post.
Oh, and there’s more. The suit also alleges that two board members should be removed because they owed the association money when they successfully sought election to the board last February (which is contrary to the association’s bylaws – see the post). A complaint was also filed in March with the state calling for removal of those Board members. No decision has yet issued on that complaint.
What happened at the association’s Dec. 19 board meeting? See the post (and decide whether to laugh or cry).
TAKEAWAY: Every community association is charged with repair or replacement if some common elements – having the means to pay for those things when needed is so important. Work with a community association lawyer to have in place a proper reserve study to enable proper budgeting.
Finally, in the post yesterday 1/4/2025, we read that EEOC says psychiatric center allegedly prioritized, promoted less qualified male therapist over female co-workers. Equal Pay Act no-no. That has now settled.
In early December the Maryland Department of Health’s Thomas B. Finan Center, a multipurpose psychiatric facility, agreed to pay $270,000 to be split among four female recreation therapists in settlement of the equal pay lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that the center hired a less experienced male for a subordinate therapist position and paid him a higher salary than the female therapists – allegedly to give him an advantage, as a male, with salary guidelines based on prior salary. (NOTE that this type of pay scale may itself be illegal – see the end of the post.) What happened next to benefit the male (to the disadvantage of the females, all of whom had more tenure than the male) is detailed in the post. After the center allegedly ignored the female therapists’ requests, the EEOC brought suit for violating the Equal Pay Act. What the $270K includes, and the other non-monetary relief that has been agreed to, is all in the post.
Keep in mind that under the EPA, men and women must be paid the same for equal (not necessarily identical) work in the same workplace. How the EEOC defines “equal work” is in the post. And if employees are not being paid equally, the employer must increase the pay of the lower paid employee – not reduce the higher-paid employee’s pay – to equalize. There are exceptions set forth in the EPA – those are discussed in the post. The burden of proving that an exception applies is on the employer.
Other recent EEOC settlements may shed light on how EPA issues arise. In November 2022, for example, Baltimore-based Jerry’s Chevrolet and its affiliate, Jerry’s Motor Cars, agreed to pay $62,000 to settle an EEOC suit alleging they paid a female warehouse dispatcher less than a male warehouse dispatcher for comparable work and then fired her after she complained. The monetary differences and bases are in the post. There was also a Title VII component to this case due to the termination – more on that, including what the dealerships argued, is also in the post.
There was also a June 2023 settlement with the EEOC. There a Wisconsin school district agreed to pay $450,000 to settle allegations that it paid nine female special ed teachers and one female school psychologist less than more-recently hired male employees for the same work. The women also allegedly had comparable or greater experience than male colleagues.
TAKEAWAY: Proper payment of workers involves more than classification; it also includes paying equally for equal work. Confer with your employment lawyer to make sure you stay out of all legal hot water.
York, Pennsylvania 17403