February

February 25, 2012

EEOC loses most of its claims; saves $4.5 million

This week in EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., No. 10-1682 (8th Circuit, February 22, 2012), the EEOC lost the lion’s share of its claims alleging sex discrimination and harassment against trucking behemoth CRST, Inc.  Only a handful of the over 250 claims of discrimination remain as a result of the 8th Circuit’s decision.  Yet, because just a few of those claims survived, the 8th Circuit determined that CRST was […]
February 23, 2012

Qualified Immunity protects officers relying on magistrate’s warrant

In a civil suit under Section 1983 this week, Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704 (February 22, 2012), the United States Supreme Court applied qualified immunity to dimiss claims alleging that officers violated the 4th Amendment by relying on an overly broad search warrant to seize a third-party’s guns and ammunition, which was not evidence of a crime or contraband.  The important take away from this case is that officers are […]
February 23, 2012

Incarcerated does not mean “in custody” for Miranda per the Supreme Court

This week, in Howes v. Fields, No. 10-280 (Feb. 21, 2012), the United States Supreme Court reiterated that whether an individual is “in custody” for the purposes of Miranda rights is a fact-dependent inquiry that evaluates all features of an interrogation.  The most pertinent inquiry is whether, when looking at all the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the law enforcement interview and leave, even if the […]
February 9, 2012

“Crummy” case provides painful lesson regarding Employer medical inquiries

This week, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that an employer violated the Minnesota Human Rights Act by requiring that an employee provide medical information about dyslexia, when the employee had not requested an accommodation and there was no evidence that the condition was impacting the employee’s ability to do his job. The employer argued that it terminated the employee (named Crummy) because he was insubordinate in not providing the […]