Federal Court Rules In EEOC’s Favor, Holding That Fired Employees Are Not Required To Return To School

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

PRESS RELEASE8-12-11

Court Denies Company’s Attempt to Limit Damages in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit; Prevents Defense Expert from Testifying

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — Finding that employees have no obligation to go to school after they are fired, a federal court in Rochester has denied Dresser-Rand Company’s attempt to limit damages in a long-standing lawsuit between the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the company.

In 2004 the EEOC sued Dresser-Rand, a Houston-based heavy manufacturing company (Civil Action No. 04-6300-CJS in U.S. District Court for the XXX District of New York), for firing Harry Davis, a Jehovah’s Witness and a manual machine tool operator at Dresser-Rand’s Painted Post, N.Y., location, for refusing to work on a part intended for use in a submarine. In 2006 the court denied Dresser-Rand’s attempt to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit in its entirety, holding that the jury should decide if an accommodation that had worked in the past – allowing Davis to switch assignments with other employees – could continue.

In 2010 Dresser-Rand attempted to limit Davis’s back pay damages, arguing that he could have gone to Corning Community College for retraining as a computer machinist. On Aug. 11, 2011, the court denied the motion, holding that employees who are fired for discriminatory reasons must seek other employment, and are not required to go to school for retraining. The court said that because Davis had sought and found other employment, the fact that he did not go to school was irrelevant. The court prevented a defense expert from testifying about the fact that Davis did not go to school. A trial date has not been set.

“This decision makes the important point that an employee fired for a discriminatory reason is not required to seek retraining or additional education,” said EEOC New York Regional Attorney Elizabeth Grossman. “An employer cannot turn around and argue that its former employee somehow harmed the employer by not seeking retraining after being fired.”

“Davis did what the law requires: sought and found work with the skills he had when he was fired by Dresser-Rand,” added EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Michael J. O’Brien.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-12-11b.cfm

Related Post

August 21, 2011   Posted in: Affirmative Action News |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."