TOLL FREE (844) 473-7376
  • Home
  • Services
    • Service - Speaker Bureau
    • Service - Public Relations
    • Service - Editorial House
  • Speakers
    • Brad Lindemann >
      • Lindemann-In Business For Life
      • Lindemann-Corporate Culture
    • Curt Smith >
      • Smith - Cancer Lessons: The Ultimate Answer is Faith
      • Smith - Credit Unions Going to Church?
      • Smith - Christian Education, Reflections from a Satisfied Customer
      • Smith - Deicide and RFRA of 2015
      • Smith - Be The Match, Marrow Donor Program
    • Christopher Mann
    • John Kessler
    • Michael Cork
    • Wesley Middleton
  • Contact
    • Subscribe
  • Calendar
  • News

U.S. Supreme Court Awards Trucking Firm $4.7 Million in Legal Fees from EEOC

5/24/2016

0 Comments

 
By Michael Cork, Esq.
Picture
View my profile on LinkedIn
book michael cork
more michael cork writing
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that trucking company, CRST Van Expedited, was entitled to the $4.7 MM in legal fees awarded by a federal district court against the EEOC. The EEOC filed a sex harassment claim against CRST in 2007 on behalf of 250 female truck drivers, who claimed they were harassed during employment. The district court dismissed all but two of the claims, since the EEOC had not adequately investigated or attempted to resolve the claims before filing suit. One of those claims settled and the other was dismissed.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's dismissal of the claims, but reversed the fee award, since there was no "final decision" making CRST a "prevailing party." But SCOTUS sent the case back to the court of appeals for review, noting that a "favorable ruling on the merits" was not required for a defendant to be a "prevailing party."

Previously, prevailing defendants were able to seek an award of attorneys' fees only where they could show that the case was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." But Title VII provides for an award of attorneys' fees to the "prevailing party." This decision may open the door to fee awards to defendants--even if they cannot show that the action was "frivolous."

CRST's President and CEO, Dave Rusch, was notably pleased with the ruling. He said the litigation spanned ten years and the legal fees actually exceeded $50 million.
0 Comments

North Carolina Sues Feds Over Transgender Issues

5/9/2016

0 Comments

 
By Michael Cork, Esq.
Picture
View my profile on LinkedIn
Book michael cork
more michael cork writing
"The [DOJ's] position is a baseless and blatant overreach," and "an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the Courts. The overwhelming weight of legal authority recognizes that transgender status is not a protected class under Title VII. If the United States desires a new protected class under Title VII, it must seek such action by the United States Congress."
​With that rhetorical flourish, North Carolina fired the opening judicial salvo in the transgender war. Plaintiffs, North Carolina Governor, Patrick L. McCrory, and Frank Perry, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division. North Carolina sued the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney General, Loretta E. Lynch, and her Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Vanita Gupta. Suit was filed May 9, 2016. A copy of the complaint is available upon request.

​The dispute arose from North Carolina's March 23, 2016 legislation known as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act. That law requires public agencies to limit the use of multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facilities based on employees' biological sex. The DOJ demands that employees be allowed to use the facility coinciding with their gender identity, regardless of biology. North Carolina claims the DOJ's interpretation prevents the state from protecting employee bodily privacy rights—while accommodating transgendered state employees. North Carolina's preemptive action was prefaced by the DOJ's May 4, 2016 demand letters threatening legal action. The DOJ contends that North Carolina has a pattern and practice of discrimination against transgender employees, but the state claims no such complaints exist.


North Carolina cites federal cases from multiple jurisdictions, all refusing "to expand Title VII protections to transgender status absent Congressional action." The state maintains that Title VII permits gender-specific employment regulations and does not prohibit state employers from balancing the special circumstances transgender employees pose with non-transgender employees' bodily privacy rights.
​

North Carolina seeks a judicial declaration that its law regarding bathroom and changing facility use by state employees does not violate federal law. It comes on the heels of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals' holding in favor of a transgender male high school student in Virginia. There, the 4th Circuit ruled that another statute, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, required the school to allow the student to use the bathroom or locker room of his choice. North Carolina also resides in the 4th Circuit.
0 Comments

    Archives

    May 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    April 2014
    January 2014
    April 2013
    August 2012
    February 2009
    April 2008

    Categories

    All
    Christopher Mann
    FAQ
    News Brad Lindemann
    News Curt Smith
    News John Kessler
    News Mark Mellinger
    News Michael Cork
    News Wesley MIddleton
    News Wesley Middleton PODCAST
    News Wesley Middleton PODCAST
    Podcast
    Speaker Bureau

    RSS Feed

Home
Services Overview
Service: Speaker Bureau
Service: Editorial House
Service: Public Relations
Contact
News
Subscribe
​Careers
Photos used under Creative Commons from Gerry Dincher, jgh_photo, joncutrer, slgckgc, Fibonacci Blue
  • Home
  • Services
    • Service - Speaker Bureau
    • Service - Public Relations
    • Service - Editorial House
  • Speakers
    • Brad Lindemann >
      • Lindemann-In Business For Life
      • Lindemann-Corporate Culture
    • Curt Smith >
      • Smith - Cancer Lessons: The Ultimate Answer is Faith
      • Smith - Credit Unions Going to Church?
      • Smith - Christian Education, Reflections from a Satisfied Customer
      • Smith - Deicide and RFRA of 2015
      • Smith - Be The Match, Marrow Donor Program
    • Christopher Mann
    • John Kessler
    • Michael Cork
    • Wesley Middleton
  • Contact
    • Subscribe
  • Calendar
  • News