The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Mavis Discount Tire, a supplier of tires and automotive parts and services based in Millwood, NY. The suit alleges that the company refused to employ females for numerous available positions, in contrast to some of the applicants being more than qualified.

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, since at least 2008, only a single woman has been employed in certain positions at Mavis Discount Tire, out of nearly 800 employees. These positions include the company’s store and service center jobs such as tire installers, mechanics, assistant managers, managers, and similar work. The EECO further claimed that, between 2008 and 2010, there were around 1,300 persons hired, and none of the applicants chosen were female. Allegedly, Mavis had failed to maintain applications, which the EEOC notes is a distinctly separate violation of federal law. But even of the applications made available, women with reportedly superior credentials and experience were not hired while men with fewer qualifications found employment.

Mavis’ alleged conduct seems to denote a routine process of discrimination, which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII has a specific section for “unlawful employment practices.” It’s considered unlawful to fail or refuse to hire, or engage in any discriminatory acts against, a person based on gender, as well as race, color, religion or national origin. Likewise, an employer cannot “limit, segregate or classify” workers or applicants based on such conditions and consequently deprive a person of employment or unfavorably affect employment.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. An attempt to conciliate the matter with the potential for a pre-litigation settlement was apparently not successful. The suit is looking to recover past and future wages for the qualified female applicants rejected, instatement for the positions the women were denied, and injunctive relief (a court order that requires the company refrain from such practices in the future).

“The EEOC is uniquely positioned to challenge systematic hiring discrimination,” P. David Lopez, General Counsel of the EEOC, said in an EEOC press release. “Where necessary, we are prepared to use litigation to hold employers accountable for depriving qualified applicants of job opportunities, simply because of their sex.”

Anna M. Pohl, trial attorney in the New York District Office, added, “Women have been working in traditionally all-male fields like automotive services and sales for quite a while, but Mavis seems to be stuck in the past.” Another attorney working the case, Gillian L. Thomas, summarized the lawsuit by stating that “evidence of sex discrimination doesn’t get much starker than having just one woman employee out of eight hundred.”

Mavis Discount Tire additionally operates as Mavis Tire Supply Corporation and Mavis Tire NY and owns Cole Muffler, Inc. The company has approximately 110 facilities throughout the northeast. The EEOC’s New York District Office, in addition to New York, has jurisdiction over Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and portions of New Jersey.

Related posts:

1. Court Decides if EEOC Discrimination Charges Filed in Timely Manner
2. Company Will Pay $30,000 for Not Accommodating Applicant with Disability
3. EEOC Brings Suit Against Company for Religious Discriminiation and Retaliation

Arriving late at work is bound to happen to everyone at some point. It generally isn’t a concern for your boss so long as it’s not a frequent occurrence or your excuse is believable. A recently study published by CareerBuilder at the company’s website showed that employees are not afraid to stroll in a little late on a regular basis, nor are they short with colorful reasons as to why they’re tardy.

According to the report, 16 percent of employees said that they’re late to work once a week or more, while 27 percent come in late at least monthly. Flexible work schedules and corresponding start times have made many employers more lenient, but repeatedly coming in late to work can still have dire consequences. Over a third of the employers surveyed stated that they have fire a worker for tardiness.

“Punctuality, or lack thereof, can impact how your commitment, reliability and performance are perceived by your employer,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder. “One of the best ways to make sure you get to work on time is to get organized and plan ahead. Lay out whatever you’ll need for the workday the night before, plan to be at the office early, account for expected commute delays and eliminate distractions in your morning routine.”

The cause most often cited in the survey for lateness was traffic, at 31 percent. Other excuses included lack of sleep (18%), bad weather (11%) and getting children to school or daycare (8%). Employers likewise blamed tardiness on such things as public transportation delays, pets, spouses, watching television and surfing the Internet.

Hiring managers also provided examples of some of the more preposterous excuses for being late. One employee said that the cat had the hiccups, while another believed that she had won the lottery, though, as it happened, she had not. The Today Show proved distracting for one worker, and an irate roommate cutting the cord to a phone charger – thereby preventing the phone from charging and its alarm going off – kept another employee from making it to work on time. Employees have also blamed the commute itself (it should count towards work hours), a fox (it stole the car keys), a personal call from the state governor (a legitimate excuse), and early hours (having no intention of arriving before 9:00 am, despite an 8:00 am start time). One worker’s excuse was having a leg stuck between the subway car and the platform, an excuse that was completely true, and another employee was late due to a job interview… with another firm.

The survey was conducted by Harris Interactive on behalf of CareerBuilder between November 9 and December 5, 2011. A total of 7,780 full-time U.S. employees (not self-employed or government) and 3,023 hiring managers and HR professionals from various industries and company sizes participated in the survey.

Related posts:

1. Mobile Devices Mean Increased Work For Employees Outside of Office Hours
2. Employees Holiday Shopping at Work, but the Bosses Have Taken Notice
3. Employees Would Like to Skip the Office Party and Head Straight for the Cash

A forklift operator working at a warehouse in Mounds View, Minnesota, was fired for violating various company policies. His response? He sued his former employers for retaliation and a co-worker for defamation.

Back in September of 2008, the plaintiff, who is white, testified on behalf of a black worker whose employment was recently terminated. The company had fired the black employee for repeatedly failing to sign a forklift checkout sheet. The man filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination, claiming that other employees likewise did not sign the sheet but had not been similarly disciplined. The plaintiff, along with a couple of other workers, essentially confirmed this claim in depositions. The company subsequently settled with the employee. Afterwards the warehouse general manager spoke to the three workers who had provided testimony and a fourth employee. Two of the men were issued disciplinary warnings, neither of whom were the plaintiff.

A couple of months later, another worker had been authorized to begin and end his shifts one hour early. Some employees questioned the reasons for the shorter shifts, and the plaintiff complained to the general manager, who called the worker into his office. Following the meeting, the man went home and committed suicide.

One of the man’s friends began telling employees that the plaintiff’s complaint was “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” stating that he “was the reason for [the man’s] death.” In the presence of other workers, the plaintiff confronted the employee making the allegations and acted in a hostile manner, bumping into him and challenging the man to strike him. Continued aggressive conduct, witnessed by other workers, led the employee to file a written complaint against the plaintiff.

The company’s headquarters in Virginia sent an HR specialist to investigate. The specialist found an abundance of incidents of misconduct from the plaintiff, as alleged by fellow workers. These included: refusing to sign the company rules, yelling at an HR employee in 2004, physically intimidating another worker, stopping his forklift and staring at the worker who’d made the previous comments, and other claims. The HR specialist recommended termination, and the plaintiff was fired in April of 2009. A grievance filed by his union was not pursued. He filed a lawsuit against the company and the general manager for retaliation and the worker whom he had challenged for defamation.

The district court ruled in favor of the defendants on both counts. On appeal, the plaintiff’s argument for retaliation was that his misconduct was a pretext for his testimony in 2008. The appeals court, however, stated that the man had failed to prove a causal connection between the testimony given and his termination. With respect to the defamation, no one had disputed the comments made against the plaintiff. The court believed that the man’s statements did not express “objectively verifiable facts.” In other words, they were clearly speculation and not intended to be factual or convey the belief that they were fact. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the company, the general manager and the employee in question.

Related posts:

1. Former AMA Employee Alleges He Lost Job Over Medical Leave for Surgery
2. Woman Alleges HR Director Suggested Lawsuit Against Former Employers
3. Court Rules Against Employee’s Claims of Retaliation

Popular retail store chain Walmart will be paying monetary compensation to settle a disability lawsuit. The settlement, filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of a former employee of the company, will also include nonmonetary relief.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit back in October of 2010. In the suit, Walmart was charged with a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee who had cancer surgery, rendering the man with a weakness in his right shoulder. The employee had worked at the company’s East Tennessee distribution center #6039 in Midway, TN, for 12 years. Following his surgery, he worked as a forklift driver. He submitted a request and asked that it not be a requirement for the man to cover a 20-minute break in the shipping department, as it would entail manual lifting. The request was denied, and the man’s employment was subsequently terminated. The company claimed that the firing was due to the employee being unable to perform functions deemed essential for the job.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greenville Division also alleged retaliation, claiming that the man was fired for complaining of the company’s refusal to accommodate his condition. Through its conciliation process, the EEOC initially tried reaching a pre-litigation settlement before filing suit.

Any company that denies reasonable accommodation or retaliates against a disabled employee violates Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This lawsuit was one of the first filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), signed into law in September of 2008. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify the definition of the term, “disability,” and to simplify the process of seeking protection under the ADA. According to the EEOC, the Act underlines that “the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA” and, for the most part, “not require extensive analysis.”

The settlement agreed upon by Walmart and the EEOC is an 18-month consent decree in which the company will be paying the former employee 275,000 dollars. The distribution center #6309 has also been enjoined (prohibited by law) from additional failures to provide reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, or follow procedures to properly handle such requests per the ADA and the ADAAA. The company will also provide anti-disability discrimination training to management staff, maintain records of accommodation requests and submit said records to the EEOC, and post a notice to employees concerning the lawsuit, with the inclusion of EEOC contact information. Walmart’s accommodation policy, available for all employees, has likewise been amended to address the accommodation issues.

In an EEOC press release, Faye A. Williams, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Memphis District Office, said, “There is a solid body of federal law that clearly obligates employers to provide an employee with a reasonable accommodation unless it poses an undue hardship. The EEOC remains committed to vigorously enforcing the ADA and the ADAAA.”

Related posts:

1. Court Rules That Employee with Diabetes is Not Disabled
2. Requiring a High School Diploma May Violate the ADA, the EEOC Suggests
3. ADM and Employee Sued by Employee

Two former employees of a condominium complex filed a suit against the company, claiming that it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying them minimum wage and overtime due. The plaintiffs recently appealed a district court’s decision.

The two men worked at Aragon Towers Condo in Florida for nearly three years, performing cleaning duties in common areas – areas such as land, hallways, etc. utilized by multiple condo owners. They also performed additional duties but did not clean individual residences. The employees lived in a one-bedroom condo in the building and paid neither rent nor mortgage.

In July of 2010, the men filed a complaint, alleging an FSLA violation for not being reimbursed minimum and overtime wage for work exceeding 40 hours in a week. In the complaint, they alleged that the business affected interstate commerce and earned 500,000 dollars annually for at least the time period during which the men were employed. These issues were likely intended to address FLSA guidelines. Enterprises, for example, must have at least two employees and 500,000 annual dollars. Likewise, an employee may still be covered by the FSLA even if an enterprise is not, so long as the work involves the employee in commerce between states.

A motion was filed by both parties for summary judgment. In their motion, however, the employees no longer claimed FLSA coverage via the business’ earnings or interstate commerce. They instead claimed that they were covered by the FLSA because they handled domestic service work, an assertion that had not been made in the initial complaint. The district ruled in favor of the company, stating that the plaintiffs’ time to amend the complaint had passed (the trial was only a week away) and that they did not qualify as domestic service employees.

On appeal, the men claimed that the district court abused its discretion to disallow an amendment to the complaint and erred in finding them unqualified for domestic service. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, noted a previous case, including a rather blunt quote: “[A] plaintiff may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief opposing summary judgment.” The complaint could have been amended, but the appeals court concurred with the prior ruling that the oral motion made by the plaintiffs would have been “futile” due to the trial’s proximity.

The “domestic service” to which the men referred is covered under the FLSA: “Any employee who in any workweek is employed in domestic service in a household” or “one or more households” for over eight hours is eligible for coverage. This type of service was intended for employees working in a “private home” belonging to the employer. In this case, the men were employed by the complex association to care for the common areas and were not employed by individual condo owners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s decision on both counts and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the company.

Related posts:

1. Even Non-resident Workers are Subject to California Overtime Laws
2. Court Rules That Employee with Diabetes is Not Disabled
3. Court Rules Against Employee’s Claims of Retaliation

A teacher who had formerly worked for the Palm Beach County School District in Florida brought action against the superintendent and a principal of one of the schools. He claims that his termination was a retaliation for his constitutionally protected right of free speech.

The man was employed as a high school history teacher beginning in 1993. In 2001, through letters and at school board meetings, he expressed his opinion that the District was not in compliance with a state statute requiring the inclusion of African and African American history in the schools’ curriculums. In May of 2002, the teacher was given an unsatisfactory performance evaluation and was subsequently placed on a “remedial teaching performance plan,” or a “site assistance plan.” During the two academic years between 2002 and 2004, the employee was transferred to varying positions among the District’s schools. His response was a lawsuit in August of 2002, alleging that the transfers were retaliation for noting the state statute violation.

In the fall of 2003, the teacher was moved again to Roosevelt Middle School to teach seventh grade geography. The principal of this school testified in court that she was initially pleased with the man’s work but eventually heard complaints from parents concerning heavy work assignments and changes to the curriculum. After receiving the complaints and seeing unsupervised students outside of the teacher’s classroom, the principal gave him an unsatisfactory evaluation and in February of 2004 recommended to the superintendent that the teacher be fired for not improving his performance. The superintendent took the matter to the school board, and at a board meeting, after the teacher was allowed to speak on his own behalf, the man was terminated.

The teacher appealed to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and an Administrative Law Judge’s decision concurred with the school board. This ruling was appealed, and the Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision in November of 2006 and remanded the case to the school board for further proceedings. In February of the same year, the teacher’s first suit proceeded to trial. The jury found in favor of the teacher, but the district court vacated (or overruled) the decision. Appeals were denied, the first deemed by the court as untimely.

A second suit was filed in March of 2007, this time, in addition to retaliation, charging a violation of the aforementioned statute and a violation of due process, the latter based on actions by the principal and school board attorneys. The district court dismissed the suit based on res judicata, meaning that the case had already been judged. The appeals court reversed the decision, and the charge of retaliation survived.

Both parties requested summary judgment. The defendants’ motion was denied, as the court believed that the decision to fire the teacher may have been pretextual and also ruled that neither defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability in cases where the violation concerns a law that may not be clearly defined. The superintendent and principal appealed, believing that res judicata should void the retaliation claims and that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The appeals court did not address the former issue, but reversed the district court’s ruling and instructed it to grant summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Related posts:

1. Penn-Trafford School District Hires Its First HR Director
2. SAISD Hires Dethloff as Exec Director of HR
3. Appeals Court Reverses Ruling on ADA Violation

Four women working at a Minnesota power company as field representatives filed a lawsuit against their employers, alleging unfair pay practices. More precisely, they claimed that they were being paid less than male employees.

The women all worked at Northern States Power Company, three of them at the company’s Chestnut Service Center in the Twin Cities area and the fourth woman at its St. Cloud Service Center. All of the female employees had been working at the company for a number of years and became field representatives in 1997-98, their duties including the collection of payments from delinquent customers and disconnecting utilities of those who had not paid. The company utilized a “red circling” policy, by which employees named field representatives retained their base pay. Accordingly, the initial pay in that position was dependent upon the individual.

Increase in pay was based on a performance evaluation system called the Individual Performance and Development (IPAD). It rated employees numerically, ranging from 1 to 5, and took into account such aspects as the total amounts collected, the amount of disconnects and reconnects, attendance, customer complaints, safety violations, etc. Employees were then awarded a raise in annual wage corresponding to the IPAD rating.

When first assigned as field reps, two of three women at the Chestnut facility had a base pay similar to two male employees, while other males’ pay was higher and some were lower. The third woman was making more than a number of her male co-workers and less than others. Several male employees became field reps after the three women and started with base pays that were higher.

The four women filed a complaint, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the company, not believing that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case; in other words, there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction. As there was a lack of evidence of wage discrimination in relation to the EPA claim, the court further dismissed the other two counts, as EPA standards correspond with Title VII and are used to analyze MHRA claims.

On appeal, the plaintiffs stated that the district court had erred in ruling that a prima facie case had not been established.  The Court of Appeals cited the district court’s comment that showing a pattern in which the protected class (in this case, the employees alleging discrimination) is sometimes more favored and sometimes less than the others is not adequate evidence. Looking at 2008-09 (the year before and year of the filed complaint), the three women at the Chestnut facility received high ratings and equivalent raises, while the female employee at the St. Cloud facility had ratings and raises higher than her male co-workers, receiving the highest possible IPAD rating of 5 in 2008. The women acknowledged that their IPAD ratings did not appear to be discriminatory.

The plaintiffs also argued that the two service centers should have been considered a singular establishment, but as not all of the same duties were handled by each service center, the appeals court did not agree. The district court’s decision was affirmed.

Related posts:

1. Work/Family Conflicts are Felt More by Men Than Women
2. A Meeting for Retirement Options, or a Precursor to Employee Termination?
3. Woman Alleges HR Director Suggested Lawsuit Against Former Employers

A defense contractor based in Houston, TX, has agreed to a settlement based on allegations of racial discrimination when hiring employees. The case involved 48 African Americans and 21 Caucasians who had applied for a job at the company but were rejected for longshoreman positions at a facility in Houston.

The company in question is JacintoPort International, LLC, a government contractor. JacintoPort was investigated by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The company had previously been cited by the OFCCP for violating requirements of Executive Order 11246 for a matter ultimately settled in June of 2006. This Executive Order prohibits federal contractors and federally-assisted construction contractors and subcontractors who deal in government business exceeding 10,000 dollars annually from discriminating in hiring applicants based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Government contractors are additionally required to take affirmative action and ensure that equal opportunity is a part of all aspects of their employment.

In the 2006 case, JacintoPort had failed to implement an applicant tracking system for new employees and had not developed and executed action-oriented programs to hire females and African Americans. The company agreed to a conciliation document, in which the violations would be rectified and the business would produce semiannual reports on the process in employing women and minorities. More recently, OFCCP investigators reviewed the semiannual reports and alleged that JacintoPort was giving “preferential treatment” to Latino applicants and “systematically discriminating” against African Americans and Caucasians who had applied for longshoreman jobs.

As per the settlement, the company has agreed to pay 219,000 dollars in back wages and interest to the 69 applicants and make 17 job offers as longshoreman positions become open. JacintoPort will likewise undertake extensive self-monitoring initiatives to ensure that all employment practices are in full compliance with the law, including record-keeping requirements.

“In this day and age, it is shocking that any company would allow race to be a factor in determining who gets hired,” said Patricia A. Shiu, OFCCP’s Director, in a Department of Labor press release. “This settlement should put all federal contractors on notice that, in the Obama administration, we will be persistent when it comes to rooting out workplace discrimination and will vigilantly monitor employers who violate the law until they get it right.”

JacintoPort is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Seaboard Corporation based in Shawnee Mission, KS, and currently holds more than 1.2 million dollars in contracts to store and transport cargo for the Defense Commissary Agency.

The OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These laws require contractors and subcontractors working for the federal government to follow “the fair and reasonable standard” to avoid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.

Related posts:

1. Town Fires HR Director Who Questioned Layoffs
2. Former HR Head Paid $100,000 Settlement
3. EEOC Brings Suit Against Company for Religious Discriminiation and Retaliation

A cleaning company has been taken to the cleaners. They will be paying 450,000 dollars to settle a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a suit against Matrix, LLC, a company that specializes in professional cleaning and janitorial services and operates in areas throughout New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. The EEOC filed the lawsuit on behalf of 15 former employees. Matrix will pay nearly a million dollars and will also be providing substantial relief.

According to EEOC’s allegations, officials at the company informed a supervisor, who is white, that she was not to hire additional African American cleaners to handle tasks at a client’s site in Concordville, PA. The supervisor apparently disregarded the notice and hired workers based on their qualifications. Allegedly, when Matrix learned that some of the new hires were black cleaners, the supervisor’s employment was terminated, an act which the EEOC deemed retaliation, as the woman was opposed to what can unmistakably be classified as racial discrimination.

The EEOC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that Matrix’ discrimination was aggravated by the company’s poor treatment of its black employees. The cleaners who were African American were allegedly told to sit in the back of the cafeteria during their breaks and were subsequently prohibited from using the cafeteria in any capacity while on break. The EEOC’s lawsuit states that Matrix later terminated every employee at the Pennsylvania site and hired new workers, none of whom were black, as the cleaning crew.

Both the reputed retaliation and racial discrimination would be a direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed to protect employees against discrimination based on race, age or religious beliefs and to prohibit an employer retaliating against a worker for charging, opposing or complaining about discrimination. The suit was filed after EEOC initially tried to reach a pre-litigation settlement by conciliation. A three-year consent decree, which is a legal maneuver to sidestep litigation, was approved. In an effort to prevent further racial discrimination or retaliation, the consent decree will require Matrix to train supervisors and managers about discrimination and retaliation, post a remedial notice, and report to the EEOC with regard to any complaints of discrimination or retaliation at the Pennsylvania site.

Spencer H. Lewis, District Director of the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office, stated in an EEOC press release, “We commend the company for its agreement to carry out the significant equitable relief provided in the consent decree, including providing expansive annual training, which will benefit all company employees.”

EEOC’s regional attorney, Debra M. Lawrence, also commented: “We appreciate Matrix’ cooperation and diligence throughout the negotiation process to resolve this case quickly without engaging in protracted and costly litigation.”

Related posts:

1. Both Sides Unhappy with Ruling on Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
2. Court Decides if EEOC Discrimination Charges Filed in Timely Manner
3. Company Will Pay $30,000 for Not Accommodating Applicant with Disability

A man sued the company where he was formerly employed, claiming racial discrimination. However, testimony that he had given four months earlier with regard to another lawsuit contradicted his claims of discrimination.

The plaintiff began working as a contract welder for Oil States Skagit Smatco in March of 2008 but left three months later. The man, an African American, alleged that he was subjected to racially disparaging conduct, including graffiti and a noose on display. He additionally stated that he was in fear of his life, as heavy parts were sometimes dropped in his proximity. As a result, he resigned from his job, as he felt he had no other choice but to quit. This is known as constructive discharge, or constructive dismissal, and was one of the man’s claims in court.

In June of 2009, he filed a complaint against Oil States in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He testified in May of the following year that racial discrimination was his reason for leaving. But he claimed an entirely different reason the previous January, in a personal injury lawsuit against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. He stated that an automobile accident in 2008 had him in such back pain that he could no longer work. In both testimonies, he explicitly stated that each reason was the sole motivation for resigning.

Oil States learned of the conflicting testimonies and, believing that the man had perjured himself, requested that the court dismiss the claims with prejudice to avert additional litigation. The man acknowledged the contradictory statements and further agreed that the constructive discharge claim should be dismissed, but not the claim of racial discrimination. The judge filed a report recommending dismissal of the claims, stating that “not everyone… will be caught. When it is discovered, the penalty needs to be severe enough to deter such conduct.” The man filed an objection to the report, but neither he nor his attorney was present at a scheduled hearing. The counts were subsequently dismissed with prejudice.

On appeal, the man argued that it was “an abuse of discretion” for the court to dismiss both counts and to deny the man a hearing to explain his conflicting testimonies. His lawyer also claimed that the judge “had personal knowledge of disputed facts” and should have been recused. The appeals court agreed that the man had committed perjury, noting that he intentionally omitted information to “bolster” each lawsuit. It likewise saw no “abuse,” as dismissal with prejudice was the only option: a monetary sanction could not be granted, as he could not afford to pay his own attorney, and dismissing only one count would allow the man to not be penalized for perjury. The court similarly found no merit in the complaint of the man’s denied hearing, nor in the recusal request, as the judge garnered her information from judicial proceedings. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Related posts:

1. Company Sued for Failure to Accommodate Religious Beliefs
2. Both Sides Unhappy with Ruling on Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
3. Court Decides if EEOC Discrimination Charges Filed in Timely Manner