Decision Squibs for the week ending October 21, 2016
Places of Public Accommodation: The Delaware Supreme Court overturned a Delaware Human Relations Commission’s award of damages, attorney’s fees, and costs holding that for the purpose of Delware’s Equal Accommodations Law a prison was not a place of "public accommodation." Ovens v Danberg, Delaware Supreme Court, Docket #123, 2016, posted on the Internet at:
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=247660
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=247660
Employer-Employee: In CalPortland Company v Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, USCA, District of Columbia, Docket #16-1094 held that the Commission could not order a mine owner to temporarily reinstate an individual who has never been employed by that owner or operator pending a final order on the individual’s underlying discrimination complaint that was then pending before the Commission. The decision is posted on the Internet at:
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/16-1094/16-1094-2016-10-20.html
Lack of Mutual Assent: Marjorie Johnson, J.D., writing in Employment Law Daily, reports that although two employees continued working after they received a new Alternate Dispute Resolution policy which required that employment disputes be resolved through binding arbitration, there was no showing of mutual assent as they voiced their objections to the ADR policy and amended their previously filed EEOC charges to allege that the new policy was retaliatory. In an unpublished opinion labeled “Not Precedential”, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s orders of dismissals of their separately filed discrimination claims and remanded for further proceedings. Scott v Education Management Corp., USCA, Third Circuit, No. 15-2177. Posted on the Internet at: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152177np.pdf
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/16-1094/16-1094-2016-10-20.html
Lack of Mutual Assent: Marjorie Johnson, J.D., writing in Employment Law Daily, reports that although two employees continued working after they received a new Alternate Dispute Resolution policy which required that employment disputes be resolved through binding arbitration, there was no showing of mutual assent as they voiced their objections to the ADR policy and amended their previously filed EEOC charges to allege that the new policy was retaliatory. In an unpublished opinion labeled “Not Precedential”, the Third Circuit vacated a district court’s orders of dismissals of their separately filed discrimination claims and remanded for further proceedings. Scott v Education Management Corp., USCA, Third Circuit, No. 15-2177. Posted on the Internet at: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152177np.pdf