employment law outline
Bammert Case
-er fired woman b/c her husband (cop) gave his wife a ticket and arrested her for dui
-ee sued, and lost
*no public policy exception to wrongful discharge is recognized here in fl
WHAT MAKES AN EMPLOYEE
*lemmerman v. a.t. williams oil co:
-corp wanted 8-yr-old to be considered an EE so he’d fall under workers comp and they wouldn’t be sued in tort (ct said he was an ee)
-court decided the way they did to avoid increasing the liability of er’s when er or ee bring a child to the workplace (so this decision protects er’s from increased exposure to tort liability…and also protects the ability of er’s to hire people who may from time to time bring their child to work (this is more of a public policy decision)
-there is no single definition of what an ee is…there are many different definitions
-in flsa, statute says an ee is someone is one who is employed by an employer
-legal definition of ee is very impt b/c being an ee means you are entitled to many things
–but in the workers comp context, someone who may appear to be an ee, would argue they are an ind contractor (this is only in workers comp context…normally the argument would more toward “i am an employee”)
at will employment doctrine
-you can be fired:
(1) at any time
(2) in any manner
(3) for any reason (with or without notice) as long as it is not for an illegal reason
kotch
-state agency using nepotism in hiring of specialized pilots
-when dealing with state employment, constitution applies (here, epc)
-not dealing with a suspect classification here, so dealing with rational basis review
–this means there must be
(1) a legitimate state interest
(2) rule must be rationally related to intent
–here state interests would be…
–court decides there are legit and rational reasons to let this hiring practice continue (early training, familiarity of waters, etc)
-court relied on unique nature of river piloting in this decision
–another court decided differently in case involving nepotism in a fire dept
-plus, if the effect of nepotism is discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or some other proscribed classification, it is illegal
TWO CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER TITLE VII
(1) disparate treatment:
-requires proof of intentional discrimination
(2) disparate impact:
-in hiring policies – you have a disparate impact on a group – sex, race, national origin
-here p has to show that a facially neutral rule has some disproportionate impact…then bop shifts to d, and d has to show business necessity
-facially neutral rule can be anything (ex. height requirement for cops or something…could be that this requirement excludes a disproportionate # of women…if p shows this, then police dept would have to show biz necessity for the requirement)
in or any classification or referral for employment by such labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment
-although the content of want ads has been regulated, the ads themselves may be run in publications with a limited readership
–for example, a want ad run in a general circulation newspaper could not indicate that the Chung Fu Restaurant had openings for Chinese waiters…but it would not be unlawful for Chung Fu to place a want ad only in a Chinese newspaper
-immigration and control act (1996) (irca)
-some basic requirements of this act…
(1) er’s have to check documentation of ee’s – ee’s have to provide proof of employment eligibility (passports, dl, ss card)
