The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) fired one of its employees for disruptive conduct. He challenged the reason for his discharge in state court and a few years later filed a suit in federal court, this time claiming that he was terminated for a prior complaint of racial discrimination.

The man had worked for IDOT for around 14 years when the Department was planning on firing him for fighting in the workplace. A “last chance agreement,” however, between a union rep and the IDOT, changed the termination to a 30-day suspension. Two years later, he was in a confrontation between a co-worker and a supervisor at an IDOT worksite. He denied that he had any physical conduct, but the others allege that he pushed the supervisor. The man was given notice of his firing for violating the policy involving violence in the workplace.

The man went before the Illinois Civil Service Commission, and an administrative law judge determined that the altercation had taken place but noted that the discharge was “not warranted.” The judge believed the physical conduct was “incidental” from the “posturing” during the confrontation, recommending a 90-day suspension in lieu of termination. The recommendation was affirmed by the Commission.

The IDOT took the decision to the Circuit Court of Cook County for review. The man, without legal counsel, noted that he had not signed the last chance agreement and was not given proper notice prior to his discharge. The judge, however, overturned the Commission’s ruling, finding “sufficient cause” for the termination.

Three years later, the man obtained a Right-to-Sue letter from the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and filed a lawsuit in federal court. For the first time, he was alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act – claiming that the IDOT had retaliated against him for a complaint of racial discrimination he had filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights years before. He had not previously cited retaliation in the other hearings.

The Department made a motion to dismiss the case, making an assertion of res judicata – a case in which a final judgment has already been rendered. In this instance, the IDOT was claiming that the man’s complaint was barred from consideration because of the decision in the Circuit Court – ruling that the reason for the termination was proper, the very aspect that a retaliation claim is calling into question. The district court concurred, stating that the man was trying to “relitigate the validity of his discharge in federal court.” The case was dismissed.

On appeal, the man contended that the retaliation claim was dependent upon facts separate from those he noted in state court. The state claim was a matter of the incident with the other two men, whereas the federal claim was a concern of the discrimination complaint. He likewise asserted that he couldn’t claim retaliation previously because he had not yet been terminated. Nevertheless, appellate judges believed that the retaliation claim was predicated on the idea of discrimination as a pretext for his firing – and because he had not previously mentioned it, he was precluded from using it as his argument. The appeals court agreed with the idea of res judicata and affirmed the case’s dismissal.

This was the least contentious part of the 3-part plan that was seeking changes to the workers ’ compensation fund and its Second Injury Fund.

The Senate passed the Bill unanimously, with the House passing it with a 122-29 vote on Tuesday.

Nixon said in his veto message that the workers’ compensation system could not adequately compensate workers for incapacitating diseases that will eventually take their lives and said such cases should be handled by civil courts as they currently are.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Dempsey said Tuesday, that legislation adding claims, related to deadly work-related diseases, into the workers compensation, would not meet with lawmakers approval.

Democratic Governor Jay Nixon, who had earlier this year vetoed the bill, said in a letter to Senate members that he now agrees with the lawmakers that such lawsuits should not be allowed. The Governor in his veto message had said that the workers compensation did not have enough teeth to adequately recompense workers for incapacitating diseases that can prove fatal to them and that they were serious enough to merit handling by civil courts.

The Governor was earlier opposed to the bill containing provisions that included claims for diseases caused by exposure to toxic chemicals.

Dan Mehan, president of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which had advocated the changes said that “Failure by lawmakers and the administration to reach compromise on these issues is a significant blow to Missouri employers and employees. Both employers and employees will pay a heavy price.”

Dempsey said that his proposals, rejected by Gov. Nixon, would have compensated sick workers by payment equaling 200 percent of the state’s average weekly wage. This worked out to around $1,546.16 per week, to be paid for 200 weeks. This settlement would give the workers a total of more than $309,000.

Dempsey said that the Governor rejected it, because he felt that it was inadequate and that the victims should receive more than double that amount, around $700,000 by his estimates.

Business groups found that amount impractical and not viable. Dempsey said that fighting toxic exposure regulations was, “like fighting the seven-headed mythical hydra. Every time you cut one of its heads off, two appear in its place.”

The bill also leaves the outcome of Second Injury Fund unanswered.  Workers with disabilities who receive workplace injuries receive benefits under this fund. The fund is financed by a surcharge on companies’ workers’ compensation insurance premiums. However, it has fallen steadily, since the surcharge was capped at 3 percent in 2005. A spokesman said that for more than $17 million unpaid bills, the funds were way short at $9.45 million.

As it is mandatory for unions to give a 10 days’ notice before striking, unions, representing the workers, have voted to authorize a two-to-five day strike against hospitals operated by five health systems in the Twin Cities. However, the authorization does not necessarily mean that a strike will surely happen.

The vote in favor of striking was overwhelming and about 91 percent of the 3,500 members of the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Minnesota voted in favor of the strike. Workers represented by SEIU Healthcare Minnesota include nursing assistants, emergency room technicians, maintenance workers and food service personnel.

Tee McClenty, executive vice president of SEIU Healthcare Minnesota, said “The vote speaks for itself.”

The Union asserts that the proposed changes would push the lowest paid workers and their families into poverty.

Renewed negotiations are scheduled to begin on Wednesday and an agreement could stall the strike. In a news release, the unions said that neither the union nor its members would make any additional remarks.

Jeremiah Whitten, a spokesman for the eight hospitals, called the vote disappointing. “But we remain optimistic that we can reach a fair settlement and are looking forward to resuming the talks,” she said.

Unions said that the strike vote was intended to send a strong message home that workers were willing to adopt tough measures and that it would act as a catalyst in the next round of contract talks. Negotiations since January have not produced any long-lasting solutions and the workers contracts, set to expire on Wednesday, have been extended several times.

The union says that apart from issues of wages and benefits, which form the crux of the problems, another area that needs to be addressed is the new proposal by the hospitals that would increase workers’ out-of-pocket costs for health insurance. There are also concerns over changes in overtime, vacation, sick time and healthcare.

The hospital management has said that the contract changes would allow for more flexibility and let the hospitals be “good stewards of our limited resources.” Union officials, however, disagree, saying that the proposed changes will mean less for the workers, who had already accepted a wage freeze three years ago.

Whitten specified that the strike would not affect physicians and registered nurses. “So if a strike were to occur, people can still see their regular doctors and nurses,” she said.

If a strike occurs, the affected hospitals would be Children’s Hospital in Minneapolis and St. Paul; Bethesda Hospital in St. Paul; St. John’s Hospital in Maplewood; Fairview Southdale Hospital in Edina; University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview in Minneapolis; North Memorial Medical Center in Robbinsdale; and Methodist Hospital in St. Louis Park.

In Nashua, the three principals finally received what they had long been waiting for, an approval that would allow them to start their positions during the month of July. They received the approval earlier this week but there were some setbacks that did occur when it came down to the starting salary that they would receive. The Board of Education chose to approve the hiring of Michael Harrington to be the principal at Fairgrounds Elementary, Jennifer Oate Scarpati to be the principal of Amherst Street Elementary, and Lynne Joseph to be the principal of Pennichuck Middle. The starting salaries for both Harrington and Scarpati will be $87,500 but Joseph will be earning a bit more, starting at a salary of $94,000.

The Superintendent of the Board of Education, Mark Conrad, said Joseph received a higher salary than the other two new principals because she had already worked as the interim principal for Pennichuck throughout this school year, taking the position to fill in for Paul Asbell who, unfortunately, suffered from a stroke. Because of this, she has a bit more experience and is well-deserving of the salary she will receive. One Board member, Sandra Ziehm, did agree that Joseph deserved to earn more, especially since she has more experience. However, she and another member, Dennis Ryder, did not feel that the other two starting salaries were fair. She felt that Harrington and Scarpati should be earning less because with such high salaries, they believe there is no money left for the classrooms. Ziehm believes that the school board cannot afford these types of salaries.

However, Ziehm and Ryder were the only two who felt that way, as the vote for these starting salaries was at 6-2. The vote for Joseph’s salary had passed with no problem with a unanimous vote of 8-0. Ryder says that he has no problem with the two new principals and has nothing against them but things that these salaries are simply too high, too much of an increase, especially when budget cuts are still taking place. One Board member, Elizabeth Van Twuyver, says she voted in favor for each of the salaries but does wonder how the starting salaries could begin with such high amounts. She thinks it is important that the Board start thinking of how much they can pay and spend.

Conrad made it known that the principals were the one who were receiving less of a raise in their salaries than the teachers. He also pointed out the salaries received in the Nashua area are, in particular, a bit higher than the average for the state. He says that it is still not as high as some other areas and that the Board is not just increasing salaries at a fast pace. Some Board members agreed with Conrad and pointed out that it is important for students to have a principal who takes responsibility for all children in the school, as well as overlooking the teachers and ensuring that everything is up to par. This is a great responsibility to have and therefore, these principals deserve the decent salary.

A neo-natal intensive care unit nurse lost her job for too many unplanned absences. She filed a lawsuit, alleging that her employers had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failing to accommodate her – by allowing an indefinite number of absences.

The woman had been working at Providence St. Vincent, a facility in Portland, OR, as a registered nurse for 11 years. Providence’s attendance policy was five unplanned absences within a twelve-month period. Since at least 2005, she has had fibromyalgia, which limits her sleep and causes chronic pain. The nurse never worked full time at the facility, but in July 2000, she was told to improve her attendance, as she had exceeded the year limit. In 2002, she was placed on work plans to address her frequent absences, which she blamed on a divorce and further predicted increased attendance when her personal life “dramatically improved.”

However, the absences continued, and the woman met with the manager to discuss her poor attendance. The manager agreed to allow the woman to call in if she was “having a bad day.” She could move her shift to later in the week and was not required to find someone to cover her shift. A year later, she had once again surpassed the maximum number of absences allotted in a year. Management was even more flexible: her two shifts per week would not be scheduled on consecutive days. More absences ensued, and the woman received a verbal warning, responding by asking to be exempt from the attendance policy altogether.

There were other absences that weren’t marked against her, including leave for medical reasons, a trial involving her spouse and counseling. The unplanned absences were still a problem, and she was issued two corrective action notices: one for the sporadic attendance, and the other for allegedly inappropriate comments made in front of a patient – in response to being informed that her part-time position would no longer exist and she would need to transfer or lose her job. She was later scheduled to meet with management following two more unplanned absences. Not surprisingly, she failed to attend the meeting and soon thereafter was terminated.

She brought action against the facility, claiming that her bosses had not accommodated her by allowing the exemption from the attendance policy. The district court ruled in favor of Providence, citing three essential reasons: she was “unqualified” due to her inability to adhere to a company policy; Providence’s flexibility in not scheduling shifts on consecutive days was a reasonable accommodation; and the request for a waiver from the attendance policy was unreasonable.

The appeals court saw the case turning on the notion of attendance being a necessity at the facility. By the plaintiff’s own admission, her absences had adverse effects on the other staff members and their job performances. Furthermore, she simply could not refute the fact that she had repeatedly violated the attendance policy, and appellate judges believed that Providence, having accommodated her numerous times, “was under no obligation to give [the plaintiff] a free pass” for every absence. The district court’s decision was affirmed.

At the moment the city is facing a retirement fund deficit of 728 million dollars over the next 30 years. The Retirement System’s Board is seeking 67 million in 2013, equals to approximately 42 percent of payroll expenses, while the city’s contribution would be around 24 percent.

According to a city administration representative the city paid out, a little less than, $35 million last year.

Retired employees, however, are of the opinion that it was the city’s liability, since they had already increased their health contributions, to meet the deficit and put the fund back on firm footing and that they should pay the 67 million that they are seeking from the Council.

Council members feel that 67 million dollars is too big an amount for the General Fund budget to manage and could result in cutting of current city worker jobs.

City retired employee Barbara Olson said, “This continues to add to how fast my pacemakers wear out. They need to be with me when I have a medical procedure or when I’m trying to do something with grandchildren and can’t afford to do it. Or just meeting our responsibilities and being decent citizens.

We really calculated very closely what we needed to live on and how we could do it,” Olson explained. “I was told the whole time I was working that this was concrete.”

She said that she was angered and frustrated by the pension report; bring her to the verge of tears. She had worked for 13 years before retiring on disability.

Another employee Thomas Koch echoed similar feelings of anger and irritation. He said, “When times were good they didn’t put the money in so now we have to pay for what they didn’t do. You’ve got to have money to live on if you want to take your wife out to eat every once in a while. Taking three, four hundred dollars out of your paycheck every month, that’s a lot of money.”

City Council members, say they have a difficult decision to make and that whichever, way they move has its own set of problems. Yvette Simpson said, “If we go on the side of taking money out of the General Fund people have to understand that means that is going to be a severe cut in services or a steep increase in income taxes. But we also have to make sure we’re doing right by the people that are retired.”

Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls accepted that, “There are lots of needs and what we have to make sure is that the pension fund remains solvent. But in the midst of it we can’t basically impoverish the rest of the city. We’re still digging out of the hole,” she said. “When we don’t perform at the level that we need to we fall further behind. It’s a vicious cycle.”

Richard M. Schulze, known for being the founder and chairman of Best Buy, has chosen to step down from his position due to an ongoing investigation. The investigation took place due to a former chief executive having an improper relationship with another employee. It turns out that Schulze knew about the relationship yet failed to report it to the board. Brian J. Dunn was the chief executive but he resigned back in April. It is believed that he violated the policy of the company because he engaged in a close and personal relationship with another employee, which impacted the environment of the workplace in a very negative manner. Dunn is 51 years old and is actually married with several children. He was fooling around with a 29 year old female employee.

Schulze found out about the affair back in December of 2011, back when an executive handed him a statement from a different employee, who basically told all about the Dunn and what he was doing with the female employee. Schulze did confront Dunn about the relationship but Dunn denied it and said that there was no inappropriate relationship going on. Although Schulze did confront Dunn about the allegation, he never shared the information with audit committee or the human resources department, along with any of the board members, which is something he was supposed to do. The board only found out about the problem during the middle of March, back when an executive in the human resources department heard of the allegations.

Schulze did not behave correctly, as he showed Dunn the statement that was written and signed by a separate employee working for the company and because he did not tell the audit company about the problem at hand. All of this information was found through an investigation. Schulze recently released a statement in which he says he did confront Dunn with the allegations and told him that it was unacceptable. He does admit, however, that he failed to disclose the information with the audit committee.

It is quite sad to see Schulze go, as he first started Best Buy in 1966 as a retail music store, which eventually grew into an electronics store that can be found nationwide. He worked as the chief executive for nearly four decades until 2002, when he became the chairman. The new chairman will be Hatim Tyabji, who happens to be a current member of the board.

In the meantime, the report proves that inappropriate behavior was going on; as the female employee boasted about the treatment she received from the CEO and all of the things he did for her, which included buying a number of concert tickets and tickets to sports events.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld a jury’s verdict against Service Temps, Inc. regarding disability discrimination. The original lawsuit had been filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of an applicant who is deaf.

Service Temps, doing business as Smith Personnel Solutions, had refused to hire a female applicant for a stock clerk position when learning that she is deaf. The woman explained via a sign-language interpreter that she was qualified for the job and had several years of store clerk experience, but the company would neither conduct an interview nor consider her for the position. A manager at Service Temps explicitly said that the woman would not be hired because she could not hear.

The EEOC’s suit, filed in a Texas district court, alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to disabled employees and applicants as long as it does not pose an “undue hardship.” A pre-litigation settlement could not be reached. In September 2010, a jury ruled that the company had violated the ADA. The woman was awarded 103,200 dollars, plus interest, in damages due to lost wages, emotional harm and punitive damages. The EEOC’s motion for an injunction was also granted by the district court, and Smith Personnel was prohibited from discriminating against persons who are disabled, regarded as disabled or have a record of a disability.

A little more than a year after the award for damages, the appeals court issued a ruling that rejected all of the company’s arguments on appeal. The higher court likewise rejected Smith Personnel’s arguments and concluded that “misapplication” of a claimed company policy by one of its employees may not subvert the notion that the employee acted within the scope of his employment.

The appeals court also cited the EEOC’s presentation of evidence at trial which demonstrated that Smith Personnel’s manager, who had the authority to hire, was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting within the scope of his employment when he refused to allow the woman to apply for a job – even when considering that his action was allegedly in violation of a company policy.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark, one of the EEOC attorneys who, along with Supervisory Trial Attorney Suzanne Anderson, tried the case to the jury, stated that the woman “demonstrated a great deal [of] courage by coming forward to report what happened to her.” He added, “We hope the jury’s verdict and the Fifth Circuit’s support of it will play a part in breaking down the barriers that deaf applicants face in applying for employment.”

“The Fifth Circuit’s decision acknowledges the diligent work of the jury at this trial,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Robert Canino. “We are very pleased that [the woman] can now close this chapter in her life and move forward.”

Ever since the Bill Haslam took office as Governor for the state of Tennessee during the month of January in 2011, over one thousand state employees have been cut, which means a whole lot of layoffs have taken place. Only a few of these employees have had the opportunity to be placed in new positions, which means that hundreds of people could still be out of work after receiving the ax. Haslam’s administration is working on trying to save while also improving the services provided by the government but this means that cuts had to be made. This means that over 2,000 jobs have been cut and eliminated.

A lot of the jobs that have been cut were made with some sort of promise of helping the employees who have received the ax to find work in other areas of the state government. However, even though the promise was given, it does not seem as though the state actually went through with that. According to the Department of Human Resources, only about 40 of those employees have been reassigned to other areas. It is quite obvious that the plan that the governor has is not yet completed and still has a long way to go.

After having been in office for over a year, for about 16 months, it is obvious that Haslam is eager to reorganize the government in the state. He wants to set a budget and stick to it as a way of helping the state to save money while still operating in an efficient manner. Haslam has also created a new law which would make it a lot simpler for managers to hire or fire workers, as well as promote workers who deserve a promotion. Haslam has the idea of tightening up management and this is a trend that is becoming quite common in the other areas. Many of the different cities in Tennessee are, however, suffering from these changes as cuts are being made to payrolls which mean that job growth is not doing as well as many in the state of Tennessee had hoped. It also means that the recovery process after the great recession will take longer than expected.

In 2008, the government payroll was at 50,000 and now, in 2012, it is less than 44,000. Even though some have warned Haslam about making so many cuts, he is still following through with his own idea of cutting off more fat, thus resulting in more positions eliminated. Many of these workers have had to go into other work, outside of government employment, simply because they have not been able to find a position to fill after having been laid off from their original government position.

Due to declining revenue, a company reduced the size of its workforce. When the company’s marketing manager was let go, he filed a lawsuit, claiming that the loss of his job was because of his age. The courts, however, saw things differently.

The man worked at ITW Air Management, which sells devices to clean, cool and maintain factory equipment. With the reduction-in-force policy in effect, the company laid off a marketing support worker – with less seniority than the complainant – in January 2009. Revenue continued to drop, and the plaintiff’s position was eliminated a month later.

The man took his suit to federal court, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court did not believe that he had provided any “circumstantial evidence” that might suggest that younger employees were given preferential treatment, nor had he identified any such employees. The court likewise asserted that a reasonable jury would find no cause to render the layoff as pretextual. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favor of the company.

To argue an ADEA claim, the man had to satisfy four points: he was a member of the protected class; he was discharged; he met the job qualifications; and he was singled out for discriminatory reasons. Appellate judges found that the plaintiff was unable to prove the final condition. He attempted to show that he had “superior” qualifications than younger employees in the same position by noting two younger co-workers: a regional sales manager and a national sales manager. In order to do this, the plaintiff had to prove that “all relevant aspects” of his job were “nearly identical” to the other workers.

In this, the man failed. The younger employees were full-time sales managers paid on commission, whereas the plaintiff was a marketing managed paid on salary who spent only half of his time in sales. Additionally, the plaintiff devoted the majority of his sales on an entirely different line of products than his co-workers.

He furthered his argument by claiming that he “could have” sold the same products as the other employees due to his years of experience in sales, but the ADEA does not allow a person asserting capability as proof of identical positions. Similarly, the plaintiff claimed that he could perform the younger employees’ jobs more proficiently, but again, this argument did not satisfy the ADEA requirement of showing that he worked the same position as others treated more favorably. His points involving his lengthier employment and more experience were likewise dismissed.

Finally, the man noted that the regional sales manager was discharged a year after his layoff and that the other co-worker was assigned some of his prior duties. These arguments merely confirmed that the company’s reduction-in-force was a necessity. Even after all of this, the plaintiff still had to prove that his layoff was a pretext for his age, which the man had been unable to do. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.