Public Employee Bloggers Beware? For Now

computerIn mid-June of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided the Richerson v. Beckon case, involving a First Amendment claim by a public school teacher after she was demoted for comments she posted on her personal blog (article in the National Law Journal can be found here (subscription required)).

As it happens, I included an analysis of this case at the district court level in my recent paper, Blogging While (Publicly) Employed: Some First Amendment Implications, 47 U. Louisville L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009).  There, I wrote in part:

In Richerson, the Central Kitsap School District initially employed Tara Richerson as the Director of Curriculum. She then was in line for a voluntary transfer to a new position that would permit her to work half time as a curriculum specialist and half time with a new instructional coaching model. Importantly, the instructional coach component of her prospective job required her to follow a model which emphasizes the sensitive and confidential relationship between her coaching position and the teachers that she would be mentoring.

Before being transferred, the school district became aware that Richerson was using a personal blog to be critical of her replacement in the Director position. Language is everything in these public employee free speech cases, so here is the entire blog posting in question:

Continue ReadingPublic Employee Bloggers Beware? For Now

Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Cases

I’ve just read a fascinating new article by Paul Secunda and Melissa Hart on the use of expert social science testimony in employment discrimination cases.  They report on the conflict, both in the courtroom and in the academy, over the use of so-called “social framework” evidence, which speaks to the tendency of certain workplace policies and practices to promote (or reduce) the impact of stereotyping and bias.  The debate echoes debates elsewhere in the law over the use of science that cannot definitively establish causation, but can only deal in likelihoods or relative increases in risk.  I am reminded of a case I use in teaching the insanity defense, United States v. Lyons, 731 F.2d 243 (5th Cir. 1984), in which the Fifth Circuit bemoans the inability of psychologists to state with certainty whether a crime resulted from a defendant’s inability to control himself.

Entitled “A Matter of Context: Social Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Class Actions,” the full Secunda-Hart article is available here on SSRN.  You can read the abstract after the break. 

Continue ReadingSocial Framework Evidence in Employment Discrimination Cases

Wisconsin Set to Pass Enhanced Employment Discrimination Law

WISCTV.com is reporting that the State of Wisconsin is close to passing a bill that would permit compensatory and punitive damages for violations of the Wisconsin’s state employment discrimination law:

A bill designed to stiffen penalties for employer discrimination passed the state Assembly on Wednesday, [April 29th].

The bill requires companies that discriminate against their workers to pay compensatory and punitive damages. This is a step above the current law, which lets the state order companies to rehire workers and pay back pay, along with attorney fees. This bill applies to employers who discriminate based on race, gender and other factors.

Democratic supporters say this bill punishes discrimination, while Republican critics say it will increase lawsuits and hurt businesses.The bill now goes to Gov. Jim Doyle for his signature as both the state Senate and Assembly have both approved it.

Actually, this amendment to the Wisconsin law is consistent with what happened to federal Title VII law after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA of 1991). 

Continue ReadingWisconsin Set to Pass Enhanced Employment Discrimination Law