Our post the other day about plaintiff/employee’s requirement of mitigating damages in employment discrimination cases drew some good comments, posted below.

But before we get to the comments, we wanted to discuss the duty to mitigate emotional damages.

emotional pain : young white woman sadly sitting with his head propped on his hands Stock Photo

Is There A Duty To Mitigate Emotional Damages?

We previously wrote about a case of apparent first

OK, so we engaged in a little Page 6 headline hyperbole – the Nuns were not literally “tossed out” of the court, but just had their discrimination claims  dismissed.  But the case is important, and we wanted to catch your eye.

A major issue for employers these days is whether individuals are employees or independent

We have written little about the requirement in Title VII (and the other anti-discrimination  laws) that a plaintiff-employee has a duty to mitigate damages.  This may be because many lawyers backburner this issue in their zeal to deal with the merits of a case, or perhaps they ignore (repress?) this issue because it presupposes that

Last week’s post about blatantly discriminatory job ads in New Zealand elicited a number of comments from folks who could not believe that such ads were actually published.  To remind you, these were some of  the ads:

* Young and vibrant waiting staff wanted

* We’re looking for vibrant salespeople with a young, passionate energy

We have written before about the EEOC’s announced intent, as per its Strategic Enforcement Plan (“SEP”), to protect “vulnerable” workers.  We said on June 5, 2014: “‘The most vulnerable workers’ — this is a part of the EEOC’s strategic plan for enforcement.  Protecting them, that is, as we noted before – think farm workers,

The EEOC has announced that it has sued a West Virginia mining company for national origin discrimination.  The company allegedly knew that its supervisory and non-supervisory personnel were regularly subjecting an employee of Polish ancestry to “degrading and humiliating comments, taunts and slurs.”

Title VII, of course, protects employees from national origin discrimination and harassment.

The EEOC has just sued a major transportation and distribution services provider from New Jersey for harassment based on race and national origin under Title VII.

This comes after a week of many such racial harassment suits filed by the EEOC.

In this case the EEOC accused company management of using “racial language” such as  

Way back on July 29, 2011 we wrote that an Oklahoma jury had awarded $20,000 in damages to a devout Muslim job applicant refused hiring by Abercrombie & Fitch when she appeared for an interview wearing a headscarf, or hijab, which she wore for religious reasons.  Abercrombie & Fitch argued that it has what it

Last June a federal court held that the single use of the “N-word” was not enough to create a hostile workplace.  This is not the first court to so hold — but not every court agrees.

racism concept : globe, concept of Racism

A black replacement janitor claimed that he was subjected to race-based harassment by co-workers who called him “boy,” “black

A North Carolina AutoZone store was just sued by the EEOC for national origin discrimination and harassment.

According to the EEOC, the Hispanic employee was forced to resign, after months of being subjected by the store manager and two co-workers to “unwelcome derogatory slurs, comments and jokes,” such as being called a “sp-c,” “beaner,” “border