LAW OFFICES OF GEOFFREY D. MUELLER, LLC

366 Kinderkamack Road
Westwood, New Jersey 07675
610 East Palisade Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
2 William Street - Suite 509
White Plains, New York 10601
Phone: (201) 569-2533 Fax: (201) 569-2554

Dear Clients & Friends-

Given the rapidly evolving Covid-19 scenarios, it is important to us for you to know we are closely following the recommendations of the CDC, WHO, State of New Jersey, State of New York and other healthcare entities to minimize the risk of transmission and protect the health, safety and well-being of our employees, clients and visitors.

This is a priority to us.

An equal and concurrent priority is our ability to continue to successfully address your legal and business matters. If and when it becomes necessary to work remotely, we are immediately prepared to seamlessly serve you with the same vigor and effectiveness we have always demonstrated.

Regardless of how current events unfold, we are and will continue to be completely and immediately available to you, whether by phone, email or otherwise, exemplifying the type of prompt, zealous and courteous representation you should expect from all legal counsel.

As always, if we can assist you in any way, please let me know directly.

Stay safe and be well.

Geoffrey D. Mueller

GEOFFREY D. MUELLER

11th Circuit Finds Banana Peel Potential Evidence of Bias

Per NJLJ, in Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, No. 11-10416:

"A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has ruled unanimously that banana peels can be evidence of racial harassment supporting an employment discrimination claim by an African-American man.

***

"William Acker Jr., a senior U.S. district judge in the Northern District of Alabama, granted summary judgment to UPS in December 2010. Acker said Jones' treatment was not sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile working environment, concluding "there is nothing inherently racist about a banana, absent direct supporting evidence."

"But Ripple wrote that the appellate panel had "no difficulty" concluding that the evidence created a jury question on the banana issue. Quoting language used by the Third and Seventh Circuits, Ripple wrote, "it has become easier to coat various forms of discrimination with the appearance of propriety because the threat of liability takes that which was once overt and makes it subtle."

"Ripple wrote that Jones' version of events suggested the bananas were not appearing on his truck by mere chance: Jones said he found bananas on his truck on multiple occasions, they were always in one of two places on the truck even though he parked it in a different location each night, and there's no evidence that bananas were found on any other truck or that Jones found any other trash on his truck. Ripple added that UPS could make to a jury its argument that it was just as likely the bananas had nothing to do with Jones or his race."

More after the jump (registration required)...