Racial Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court has just dismissed a case that would have decided a longstanding question of whether disparate impact claims are available under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Adams v. Florida Power Corp. What this means for employers is that, in the Eleventh Circuit at least, plaintiffs will not be able prevail on ADEA suits unless they can show that the employer intended to discriminate against them because of their age.

There are two basic types of discrimination claims: disparate impact and disparate treatment. Disparate treatment claims require the person complaining to show that the employer intended to discriminate against him or her when it took the questionable employment action. Disparate impact claims do not require proof of intentional discrimination. Instead, disparate impact claims are based on the theory that an employer's policy that appears neutral on its face actually affects a protected group more harshly than an unprotected group. Disparate impact claims are available under Title VII, but the federal appeals courts are divided on whether they are available under the ADEA. The ADEA's language is slightly different from that of Title VII because it allows an employer to make decisions

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

Another recent case out of Texas further illustrates that courts will not find an employer liable for invasion of privacy when the investigation has a direct relation to business purposes and uncovers information related to that interest. Employers: Tailor Monitoring to Specific Business Needs

The cases reveal a consistent theme for invasion of privacy claims in an employment context.

The court further found that because the employer used a camera with a wide angle lens instead of, for example, simply pointing the camera at the entrance to the office to determine who entered and exited, a question of fact existed regarding whether the employer used the least intrusive means to observe activity in the room.

The court found that these allegations did not support a cause of action for invasion of privacy because they did not involve any physical invasion or any prying into the plaintiff's personal affairs. The Buying Office, a federal court in Georgia refused to recognize a claim for invasion of privacy that was based on allegations that the same conduct underlying the plaintiff's sexual harassment claim also constituted an invasion into the plaintiff's "psychological sanctity. After the plaintiff twice refused to read the transcript, the employer fired him.

Under the FCRA, a consumer report is defined as "any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for .

Even where an employee alleged that some of her managers touched her and rubbed against her in a sexual manner, in addition to using profanity and vulgar language, and taking controlled substances at work, a Texas court found that the allegations failed to establish a claim for invasion of privacy, which requires an invasion into a person's property or an intrusion into private affairs. The Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits have allowed them. Kmart assigned one investigator to focus on theft, sabotage, safety, and drug use.

As a result, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's case.

Approximate Word count = 3109
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.