Illinois appellate court holds that a sheriff could not require jail officers to dispense medications without bargaining with the union, and to arbitrate any impasse.

     A sheriff wanted to assign correctional officers the duty of dispensing medication to inmates, which is permitted under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. The union objected and said the procedure was subject to mandatory bargaining and arbitration.

     The sheriff sought a declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court. The judge ruled that because the Substances Act permitted correctional officers to dispense medications, the matter was not arbitrable. A three-judge appeals panel has reversed, saying:

A sheriff could order a deputy to spend his shift standing on a corner stirring a bucket of rocks. There is nothing illegal about that. However, it might very well be a violation of the collective bargaining agreement between the sheriff and his employees. The issue at this stage of the dispute is whether the collective bargaining agreement and the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act require arbitration of the grievance. They do.

     The Circuit Court ignored the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, which provides for mandatory arbitration of impasses. It overrides the Substances Act, and the matter has to be arbitrated.

     The appellate panel added that they were unable to comment on the merits of the grievance. The issue of whether the law requires arbitration "must be kept separate from an analysis of the merits of the underlying claim ... even if ... [the] claim is frivolous." Rock Island Co. Sheriff v. AFSCME L-2025, #3-03-0052, 2003 Ill. App. Lexis 634 (3rd Dist. 2003).

     • Click here to read the decision on the Internet.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Federal appeals court dismisses a suit filed by an ex-investigator who was charged with theft, but was never convicted. Probable cause and qualified immunity protected the city and defendants.

     A coroner's investigator was arrested for stealing a ring from a home; he claimed he took it by mistake. Although he was indicted, he was not convicted. He also was fired from his job.

     He sued the city and others for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and various civil rights and constitutional violations. He alleged that that the city was out to get him because the media had dubbed him "King of Overtime," claiming that he was the highest paid City employee because of overtime earnings.

     The trial court declined a summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, a three-judge panel has reversed, saying that defendants were "entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds ... for malicious prosecution, false arrest and abuse of process, as well as [the] § 1983 claim based on ... state-law causes of action." Savino v. City of New York, No. 02-7108 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 10263 (2d Cir. 2003).

     • Click here to read the decision on the Internet. [PDF]

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Supreme Court declines to review the convictions of Navy civilians who refused anthrax vaccinations (bacillus anthracis).

     In March we reported that a federal appeals court held that the Navy could fire employees who willfully refuse the inoculations, and the punishment was not excessive. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a further appeal.

     The appellate panel said that "Insubordination is a serious offense that disrupts the work place and interferes with and threatens the ability of the work force to perform its duties." Mazares v. Dept. of the Navy, #01-3337, 302 F.3d 1382, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 18684 (Fed. Cir. 2002); cert. den. # 02-846, 123 S.Ct. 1748, 2003 U.S. Lexis 2732 (Sup.Ct. 2003).

     • Click the link to read our prior article or to view the appellate court's opinion on the Internet.

     Editor's Note: In late May, a military court martial convicted a Polish-born Army private who refused to take the inoculation on religious and medical grounds. The eight-officer panel rejected her fear that the vaccine is unsafe for women who might become pregnant, or that it unlawfully interfered with the practice of her faith as a Roman Catholic. Only two of the eight jurors have themselves received the vaccine. U.S. v. Pvt. Kamila Iwanowska, Army Ct. Martial (Ft. Drum, NY 2003).

     " Also see, "Friendly Fire: The Mandatory Military Anthrax Vaccination Program," by Randall Katz, 50 (6) Duke L. J. 1835 (2001).

     " A website on the possible dangers of the vaccine was created by a former Air Force major who resigned after refusing to be inoculated; it has not been updated recently. Another anthrax information website is maintained by the National Gulf War Resource Center, a national organization formed to assist veterans of the Persian Gulf initiatives.

     " The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has a website for managers on anthrax and other bioterrorism threats. It includes links to other related sites on the Internet.

     " New Scientist Magazine has an online Report on bioterrorism and bioweapons.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Arbitrator reinstates an officer because management failed to provide him with a Bill of Particulars prior to a predisciplinary conference, as required by the bargaining agreement.

     In an Ohio sheriff's dept., the bargaining agreement provided for a pre-disciplinary conference to be conducted by a neutral supervisors not directly in the chain of command of the employee. It also provided that not less than twenty-four hours prior to the conference, the employer will provide the employee with a written outline of the charges.

     Management failed to assemble specific charges, replying that the accused officer "knows" what he did. Eventually the officer was fired, and the union grieved.

     The arbitrator never got to the merits of the termination. He said:

"By saying, the 'grievant knows' of the charges is to beg off on the specificity mandated for the pre-disciplinary notice language. ... Specific notice of wrongdoing must be given. ... It simply is not enough to say, 'he did it and he knows what he did.'

     The request for specificity was denied and ignored. "Charges without specification are meaningless," said the arbitrator, and violated the officer's right to due process. Management was ordered to reinstate the officer with backpay and benefits. Stark County Sheriff and FOP, 118 LA (BNA) 407, FMCS Case # 031001/00019-6 (Feldman, 2003).

     • Click here to read the opinion on the AELE website.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Terminations of officers, who failed to get insulin for a prisoner who was found dead in his cell, are overturned.

     A lieutenant, a sergeant and three police officers were terminated for the failure to notify an officer in charge that a prisoner had requested medical attention, failing to detect his death for at least two hours and failing to document mandatory prisoner checks.

     The 48 year old prisoner, a diabetic who had asked for insulin, died in his cell from a heart attack. He had been arrested on drug charges.

     The firings were reversed because was no proof that insulin deprivation caused the prisoner's death. Appeal of Miles, et al., Detroit Police Trial Board (2003).

     References: Detroit City Charter provisions on police discipline and Police Disciplinary Procedure - Trial Boards. [PDF]

     Editor's Note: The family of the prisoner filed suit against the city. That action was settled for $650,000. Thomas v. City of Detroit, #00-CV-72899 (E.D. Mich., 2003).

     • Click link to read the Official Docket in the civil lawsuit.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Failure to promptly order a drug test, following an anonymous call, flawed the city's case against a worker. The fact a coworker tested positive is still not enough proof, and an arbitrator orders reinstatement.

     Drug use on duty is a serious offense, but proper disciplinary investigations also must be responsibly conducted. Here, a woman caller said that the grievant and two coworkers were smoking marijuana in a city vehicle. Their supervisor was not working that day.

     The next day the grievant took off for prescheduled dental work. The other workers were tested. After the screens revealed cannabis metabolites, they resigned. When the grievant returned to work, after sick leave, he was fired.

     The arbitrator noted that management chose to terminate the grievant "based on the anonymous phone call, the verification of the phone call by the positive drug tests of the two other employees named in the call," and a supervisor's previous statement that he had smelled marijuana on the grievant at prior time.

     The arbitrator annulled the termination, noting:

"The Grievant was not discharged because he tested positive on a drug test; nor was he discharged because he refused to take a drug test. Management never ordered or even asked him to submit to a test.

"... there is no direct evidence that the Grievant committed this offense. None of the witnesses who testified, including Administrator W_, Manager K_, and Supervisor R_, had observed the Grievant smoking marijuana ... The only evidence that the Grievant had done so is circumstantial ...

"At most ... the City might have had sufficient grounds to test the Grievant. But this the City did not do. Management fired the Grievant instead."

     Here, the city dropped the ball. If the grievant had been smoking marijuana as reported, management could have investigated immediately or the next day. It is improbable that there was no one in authority in City government who could have ordered a drug test.

     City of Indianapolis and AFSCME C-62, AAA Case #52-390-00259-02, 118 LA (BNA) 357 (Kohn, 2003).

     • Click here to read the decision on AELE's website.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Seventh Circuit upholds the firing of an officer who was "set up" in a sting operation. Other officers arranged for a woman to perform a sex act and then ask him for $17 to pay a manicurist.

     In an effort to rid the police department of an unwanted officer, detectives arranged for a woman to perform an oral sex act on the officer for money. Although she had engaged in sex with him before, their relationship had ended.

     The woman was threatened with imprisonment on drug charges and told that she was facing 40 years in prison if she refused to cooperate. She agreed. They wired her, gave her a napkin and instructed her to spit the officer's semen into it to provide physical evidence of the sex act. She also was to ask him for $17 to do her nails.

     After the encounter, the officer was arrested for soliciting a prostitute. The charges were dropped because the woman refused to cooperate further.

     After a disciplinary hearing, the officer was fired. The woman, who had no criminal record, was never charged with any offense. No one was disciplined for the unorthodox investigative tactics.

     The ex-officer and the woman filed suit against the city and various officers, claiming various civil rights violations. The trial court dismissed all claims. On appeal, a three-judge panel affirmed the dismissal of the claims raised by the former officer, saying:

"Stings are not illegal or even disreputable... there was reason to believe that [the plaintiff] had paid [the woman] for sex in the past; and there was probable cause to arrest him ... the semen in the napkin being a gratuitous addition to the evidence.

"The fact that [she] asked him for money for her nails is irrelevant. Prostitutes, like other people, seek income in order to purchase goods and services. It is not a defense to prostitution for the prostitute to say, 'My fee is $100 and I plan to use it to buy milk for my children.'"

     The panel agreed with the plaintiff that he was tricked into having sex. "Such trickery does not violate any constitutional right of criminals." However, coercing the woman to have sex with the officer "is a more serious matter." But the ex-officer "cannot complain about an infringement of the constitutional rights of another person."

     Her allegations, if true, could state a cause of action. "Sex procured by threats that the threatener has no legal right to make is a common form of rape," said the panel.

     Given that she had no criminal record and never was prosecuted for the cocaine offense -- even after she refused to cooperate with the prosecution of plaintiff may have been a fraudulent threat. Moreover, the "suggestion that she was facing a prison term of 40 years was extravagant." Alexander v. DeAngelo, #02-3124, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 10244 (7th Cir. 2003).

     • Click here to view the decision on the Internet. [PDF]

     • Click here to read an article about the liability aspects of this case in the AELE Liability Reporter.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Federal court rejects a discrimination suit, filed by an ex campus police officer with dyslexia, who was fired for poor performance.

     The court said that although the university, a part of the State of New York, could not be sued for money damages under ADA because of the 11th Amendment, plaintiffs can obtain equitable relief and damages under the New York Human Rights Law.

     On the merits of the former officer's claim, the court found that he was unable establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he could not show that university officials regarded him as disabled because of his dyslexia.

     The evidence showed only that his superiors disputed his ability to work successfully as a campus police officer. Moreover, the plaintiff did not disclose his condition when hired, and did not seek an accommodation.

     During his probationary period, his superiors noted procedural errors, missing dates, incomplete names, sloppy entries and spelling errors. There were multiple reviews and opportunities for the officer to improve.

     The judge wrote that "even if plaintiff were able to show that defendants regarded him as unable to perform his job as a Campus Police Officer because of his disability, he has presented no evidence that defendants regarded him as unable to work in a wide-range of jobs."

     The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish the first element of his prima facie case, that he is disabled within the meaning of either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Smith v. State Univ. of N.Y., #1:00-CV-1454, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6835, 14 AD Cases (BNA) 540 (N.D.N.Y. 2003).

     • Click here to read the decision on AELE's website.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Arbitrator enforces a "Me too" clause in a bargaining agreement and awards all union members a $600 retirement contribution that was given to nonunion workers, even though the payment was intended to match similar remuneration given to union members.

     This case is a vivid reminder that management should put its cards on the table, and during negotiations, declare that it plans to treat nonunion workers the same -- and to include those provisions in the bargaining agreement.

     Here, a $600 lump sum payment given to nonunion workers was made after the bargaining agreement was signed with the FOP. That agreement had a "Me too" clause that "if any employee of the City shall receive a higher raise during the life of this contract the members covered by this contract shall receive an identical percentage raise less the four and one half (4.5%) percent included herein."

     The arbitrator said that "the clear intent and purpose of ... the agreement is to insure that non bargaining unit employees do not receive raises, irrespective of how they are couched or labeled, that exceed the raises the union negotiated for its members."

     Once the agreement is signed, the "Me too" clause kicks in for any increase that was not excluded in the bargaining agreement, regardless of the purpose of the increase or what it is called. City of Hillsboro and FOP, 118 LA (BNA) 439, FMCS Case #02/07448-6 (Imundo, 2003).

     • Click here to read the award on AELE's website.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Federal court in Seattle strikes down a state statute prohibiting the publication of an officer's home address or phone number. The plaintiff website owner, a critic of local police activity, is entitled to a summary judgment.

     In April 2002 Washington State adopted Code §4.24.680 which reads:

"Unlawful release of court and law enforcement employee information.

"A person or organization shall not, with the intent to harm or intimidate, sell, trade, give, publish, distribute, or otherwise release the residential address, residential telephone number, birthdate, or social security number of any law enforcement-related, corrections officer-related, or court-related employee or volunteer, or someone with a similar name, and categorize them as such, without the express written permission of the employee or volunteer unless specifically exempted by law or court order."

     The private website www.justicefiles.org challenges the correctness of official investigations. After the law was enacted, the owner removed the home addresses and telephone numbers of the peace officers that were on his site and then filed suit in federal court, seeking injunctive relief.

     The plaintiff had obtained the personal data from public sources, and he alleged that the public has a right to picket the homes of individual officers.

     The District Court found that the statute does not serve a "compelling state interest." It was impermissibly overbroad; the judge wrote:

"The statute punishes the communication of truthful lawfully-obtained, publicly-available information. ... This court does not intend to minimize the real fear of harm and intimidation that law enforcement-related, correction officer-related, and court-related employees, and their families may experience. * * *

"However, we live in a democratic society founded on fundamental constitutional principles. In this society, we do not quash fear by increasing government power, proscribed those constitutional principles, and silencing those speakers of whom the majority disapproves."

     The court granted the plaintiff a summary judgment. Sheehan v. Gregoire, # C02-1112C (W.D. Wash. 2003). The state will appeal.

     • To visit the plaintiff's website, click here.

     • Click the link to read the Complaint and the Order of Summary Judgment. [PDF]

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Three women police officers win $3.5 million for sexual harassment.

     A jury in Los Angeles has awarded $3,516,426 to three women police officers from suburban Glendale. They claimed that they were propositioned, groped, and exposed to pornography by male officers and supervisors, who later retaliated against them.

     The jury awarded $1,361,250 to one plaintiff, $1,305,176 to another, and $850,000 to the third, including compensation for lost wages and benefits. The city said it had taken action to prevent harassment, including the suspension of a sergeant. The sergeant had been suspended for three days in response to eight allegations of sexual harassment over a six-year period..

     The plaintiffs claimed that they had been denied transfers and received more severe discipline for lesser offenses than their male coworkers. Frieders v. City of Glendale, #BC263271, 41 (2014) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 638 (L.A. Co. Calif. Super. Ct. 2003).

     • Additional sources: LA Times and Associated Press (6/3/2003); ABC-7 News (6/2/2003); Feminist Daily News Wire (6/6/2003).

     • Click here to view the Official Docket entries.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

The Justice Dept. pays $85,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a retired FBI agent, who claimed that he was defamed and forced into early retirement as a result of his work in Travelgate and Filegate.

     The plaintiff was an FBI agent that was attached to the White House until 1996. That year, a book called "Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House" was published. [Regnery Publishing: 1996]. It was an unflattering portrayal of the Clinton administration; it also made many references to the plaintiff and attributed several direct quotes to him.

     Additionally, the plaintiff testified as a defense witness in the criminal prosecution of a "Travelgate" defendant. After an involuntary reassignment, he retired three years before the maximum age.

     He sued then Attorney General Reno, the Executive Office of the White House and several named officials, seeking $300,000 in compensatory damages. He alleged violations of the Civil Rights, Privacy and Rehabilitation Acts.

     In a 2001 ruling, two of the named defendants were dismissed from the lawsuit because the Civil Service Reform Act [5 U.S. Code §7511, §§7701-7703] provides an exclusive remedy for victimized federal employees, and immunizes superiors and coworkers from personal liability from employment-related litigation.

This year, the agent was paid $85,000 by the DoJ to settle all claims. He was represented by Judicial Watch, a nonprofit organization that promotes ethics and morality in the legal community. Sculimbrene v. Reno, #99-2010 (settlement 2003); prior opin. at 158 F.Supp.2d 1, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12308 (D.D.C. 2001).

     • Click the link, to view the plaintiff's Complaint and the Court's Order dismissing two named defendants.

     • Return to the Contents menu.

Applicant Rejections

     Job applicant loses his civil rights suit against a city council that blocked his hiring after he pushed a pie into the face of a state senator, to protest a highway project. Greenberg v. City of St. Paul, #02-3283, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9777 (8th Cir. 2003).

Arbitration Procedures

     Federal court enforces an arbitration award requiring an employer to reinstate, with loss of six months of back pay, a white employee who referred to a superior as a "fucking nigger." Courts must not set aside arbitration awards in the absence of a clearly violated public policy; the superior did not hear the remark and the worker had a twelve-year record of good employment. GITS Mfg. v. Local 281, #4:02cv40243, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7963, 172 LRRM (BNA) 2463, 91 FEP Cases (BNA) 1286 (S.D.Iowa 2003).

Conflicts of Interest

     Federal court in Illinois holds that city attorneys and corporation counsel may represent both the city and individuals who are or were city officials or employees and who are being sued in both their individual and official capacities, despite existence of possible conflicts between city and individuals, if there is no evidence of actual conflict at present time, and the individuals have signed waivers stating that they have been informed of potential conflicts. Frazier v. Harris, #03-3007, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9607, 91 FEP Cases (BNA) 1374 (C.D. Ill. 2003).

Contracts, Consultants and Outsourcing

     A divided Ninth Circuit allows two communist defectors to sue the CIA for compensation allegedly owed them. Doe v. Tenet, #01-35419, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 10667 (9th Cir. 2003). [PDF] Note: the majority holding conflicts with prior case law, such as Kielczynski v. C.I.A., #00CV539, 128 F.Supp.2d 151, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 1854 (E.D.N.Y. 2001); aff'd sub nom. Kielczynski v. Does 1-2, 56 Fed. Appx. 540 (2d Cir. 2003).

     Office of Management and Budget announces the adoption of new bidding rules, designed to allow private businesses to compete more for work that is currently performed by as many as 850,000 government employees. OMB Circular A-76, 71 (46) U.S. Law Week (BNA) 2762 (May, 2003).

Criminal Liability

     The LA Times has reported that, in the last two years, 96 LAPD officers who were accused of wrongdoing have escaped possible criminal prosecution because investigators waited until the statute of limitations had run before submitting the cases to the D.A.'s office. (May 19, 2003)

Disciplinary Appeals & Challenges - In General

     A California State Personnel Board decision ordering the reinstatement of a corrections officer was final, and the officer could sue the agency to enforce the order. Lomeli v. Dept. of Correction, #C041520, 134 Cal.Rptr.2d 179, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 717 (3rd Dist. 2003). [PDF]

Disciplinary Offenses

     Although a person has a legal right to defend himself against an assault, an employer's policy prohibiting employees from fighting, even in self-defense if retreat is possible, does not violates a public policy. Escalante v. Wilson's Art Studio, #G029742, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 842 (4th Dist. 2003).

Drug Screening and Specimen Testing

     Arbitrator upholds termination of an employee who diluted his urine sample; unlike a positive result, a confirming test was not required. County of Wayne and Mich. AFSCME L-101, 118 LA (BNA) 417 (Brodsky, 2003).

Employee Harassment - Nonsexual

     A male Title VII plaintiff could not demonstrate that he was discriminated against "because of" his gender by male coworkers, who allegedly did not think that he fit the male stereotype and might be gay. Hamm v. Weyauwega, #02-2529, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11701 (7th Cir. 2003).

FLSA - Overtime - in General

     Supreme Court rules that a FLSA claim, filed in state court, can be removed from state to federal court. Breuer v. Jim's Concrete, #02-337, 123 S.Ct. 1882, 2003 U.S. Lexis 3677 (2003).

Family, Medical & Personal Leave

     Constitutionality: Supreme Court rules that the Congress clearly abrogated the Eleventh Amendment immunity of state governments when it enacted the FMLA. Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs, #01-1368, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 2003 U.S. Lexis 4272 (2003).

Firearms - Restrictions on Wearing

     Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) has introduced H.R.1064, to authorize Federal Bureau of Prison personnel to carry firearms while off duty. The Bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee (Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security).

Health Insurance & Benefits

     Supreme Court declines to review an en banc appellate decision that held, 9-to-3, that the government was not obligated to honor medical claims of veterans that had enlisted with a promise of lifetime medical benefits. Schism v. U.S., #99-1402, 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir., en banc 2002); cert. den. #02-1226, 2003 U.S. Lexis 4404, 71 Law Week 3750 (2003).

Homosexual & Transgendered Employee Rights

     The Governor of Kentucky (Paul Patton, Dem.) has issued Executive Order 2003-533 prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; it covers 36,000 cabinet department employees and applicants (May 29, 2003). Kentucky is supposedly the only state to also include gender identity discrimination by executive order.

Privacy Rights

     News reporter convicted of trespass when he went to the front door of a former police officer's home seeking to interview him; he entered through an unlocked gate that had a "no trespassing" sign. Arizona v. Wells, Chandler (Ariz.) Municipal Court (2003).

Psychological Counseling

     The fact that a person participated in psychotherapy as a condition of probation does not waive his therapist-patient privilege, and those records cannot be subpoenaed. The motive for participating in psychotherapy is immaterial as to whether a privilege attaches. Story v. Super. Ct. (Peo.), # H024993, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 865 (5th Dist. 2003). [PDF]

Psychological Exams and Standards - Conduct Justifying a Required Exam

     A former employee who claims only that he suffered emotional stress because of the work environment did not place his mental condition in controversy so as to justify a court-ordered psychiatric examination. He did not claim an ongoing mental injury or a psychiatric disorder and he did not sue for the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. Bowen v. Parking Auth. of Camden, #00-5765, 214 F.R.D. 188, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6913, 91 FEP Cases (BNA) 1200 (D.N.J. 2003).

Race Discrimination - In General

     Federal appeal court affirms an award of $3.5 million in compensatory and $13.3 million in punitive damages, where seven white employees were transferred from their jobs at the main library to dead-end jobs at branch libraries because of their race. Bogle v. McClure, #2-13213, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 11332 (11th Cir. 2003).

Religious Discrimination

     The ACLU has lost a lawsuit filed in behalf of a veiled Muslim woman who demanded that a Florida driver's license be issued without an unveiled facial photo. Freeman v. St. of Florida, #CIO 02-600, 9th Jud. Cir. Ct. Fla. (2003). (Click link to view her complaint).

Retirement Rights and Benefits

     Governor of New York (George Pataki, Rep.) has approved Assembly Bill 8352 which will reduce state and local government pension costs by $1.6 billion in the current fiscal year; it restructures the way public employers make contributions to the state's retirement fund.

Sexual Harassment - Same Gender

     California appellate court holds that a county can be liable for a hostile environment claim brought by a worker who complained of same-gender harassment. Sheffield v. Co. of Los Angeles, #B161081, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 774 (2003). [PDF]

Union and Associational Activities

     Sixth Circuit upholds right of uniformed employees to wear a union-distributed button opposing forced overtime. The nurses were engaged in protected activity that did not involve either a slowdown or work stoppage. Mt. Clemens Gen. Hosp. v. NLRB, #01-2263, 328 F.3d 837, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 9349, 172 LRRM (BNA) 2513, 2003 FED App. 0143P (6th Cir. 2003).

Untruthfulness & Resume Fraud

     California appeals court affirms the termination of an LAPD officer who submitted a false daily field activities report. Haney v. City of Los Angeles, No. B153530, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 763 (2d Dist. 2003). [PDF]

     • Return to the Contents menu.

     EEO settlements: EEOC Litigation Settlements monthly reports.

     EEO statistics: EEOC Litigation Statistics, FY 1992 through 2002.

     Employment law: "Recent Developments in Employer-Employee Relations," 38 (2) Tort Trial & Insur. Prac. Law Journal (ABA) 309-334 (Winter 2003); www.abanet.org

     Gay Rights: State laws & legislation website.

     Health: Article, "Individual Differences in Utilizing Control to Cope With Job Demands: Effects on Susceptibility to Infectious Disease," 86 (2) Journal of Applied Psychology (APA) 265-278.

     National security classified information: The President's amendments to the Executive Order on Classified National Security Information. Executive Order 13292 (2003).

     Neurolinguistic evaluations: Recognizing indications of deception or truthfulness during an employee interview.

     Terrorism: A DoJ Report to the Congress describes the use of new powers authorized under the USA PATRIOT Act (May 13, 2003). [PDF]

     Weapons of mass destruction: White House Memo to agency chiefs: "Action to safeguard information regarding weapons of mass destruction and other sensitive documents related to homeland security."

Reference:

     • Abbreviations of Law Reports, laws and agencies used in our publications.
     • AELE's list of recently noted employment law resources.  
     • Discrimination Laws plus EEOC Regulations and Policy Guidance

CROSS REFERENCES