Employment Law Briefing
Showing 81–96 of 258 results
-
Defending a claim made under the Equal Pay Act
March / April 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 562
Abstract: After a discrimination claim was filed by a female attorney in her employer’s law department, the EEOC began a three-year investigation into the employer’s pay practices. It then filed a complaint, alleging that female and male nonsupervisory attorneys received unequal pay for performing equal work. But, as this article explains, both the district and appeals courts found the EEOC’s claims to be too general in nature. Still, the case indicates why it’s important for employers to maintain detailed job descriptions that account for the differences among their various positions. E.E.O.C. v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, No. 13-2705-CV, Sept. 29, 2014 (2nd Cir.)
-
Age Discrimination in Employment Act – Superintendent’s comments propel case to trial
March / April 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 648
Abstract: When a school principal’s contract wasn’t renewed, he claimed age discrimination, citing statements by the superintendent suggesting age-based animus. At trial, the superintendent (who was older) claimed that he had made all of these comments with respect to his own job, not the plaintiff’s position. The district court agreed, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. This article explains why — noting that it’s important to instruct and remind management to avoid age-related comments even when the words in question aren’t directed solely toward an individual employee. Scheick v. Tecumseh Public Schools, No. 13-1558766, Sept. 2, 2014 (6th Cir.)
-
Respect the record – Retaliation case turns on documentation
March / April 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 828
Abstract: A woman who suffered from Crohn’s disease was provided accommodation regarding bathroom access and sick leave, but she was eventually terminated for performance and attendance issues. After her claim of unlawful discrimination failed in the district court, she asserted that these issues, cited at trial, were pretextual because they weren’t stated in the contract nonrenewal notice. But the appeals court held that there was no law requiring employers to list each and every reason for termination, and was satisfied with the documentation of her performance that her employer had provided. As this article says, the lesson of this case is fairly straightforward: The record matters. Collazo-Rosado v. University of Puerto Rico, No. 13-1641, Sept. 2, 2014 (1st Cir.)
-
What can go wrong? ADA decision shows importance of interactive process
March / April 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 927
Abstract: A hairdresser at a nursing home sometimes had to push residents in wheelchairs from their rooms to the beauty parlor. After she had a surgical procedure, her ability to do this was limited. But the facility’s administrator told her that they didn’t allow employees to work under restrictions, and denied her request for an accommodation of having other employees push the wheelchairs. As this article discusses, the district court sided with the nursing home, but the appeals court reversed, finding that the record on whether pushing the residents was an “essential function” of being a hairdresser was unresolved — and that the administrator’s comments could be found to be evidence of disability-based discrimination. A sidebar discusses an earlier case that went the other way. Kauffman v. Petersen Health Care VII, LLC, No. 13-3661, Oct. 16, 2014 (7th Cir.) Basith v. Cook County, No. 00-1656, March 6, 2001 (7th Cir.)
-
Contentious overtime calculation adds up to FLSA lawsuit
January / February 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 605
Abstract: The Fifth Circuit recently considered whether using a Monday through Sunday workweek to calculate overtime violated the FLSA when the employees in question worked Thursday through Wednesday. The potential difference in pay for the employees was substantial. The court found for the employer, but this article warns that reliance on technical analysis of the FLSA’s language can cut both ways. Johnson v. Heckmann Water Resources, No. 13-40824, July 14, 2014 (5th Cir.) Abshire v. Redland Energy Services, LLC, No. 11-3380, Oct. 10, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Powerful words – COO’s statements leave employer in the legal lurch
January / February 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 625
Abstract: When a 71-year-old security guard was laid off from his job at the retirement home he lived in, he filed an age discrimination suit. The COO claimed that he’d decided to eliminate the resident employee program to save costs and assure a better trained workforce. The district court granted summary judgment, and the plaintiff appealed, stating that the court had erred in doing so before he had any opportunity to conduct discovery. The appellate court agreed, holding that the plaintiff had offered direct evidence of discriminatory intent and so was entitled to a trial. This article notes that part of that evidence was the COO’s earlier statements to the EEOC that suggested a discriminatory attitude. Wilson v. Cox, No. 12-5070, June 3, 2014 (D.C. Cir.)
-
“Strange behavior” or racial discrimination?
January / February 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 847
Abstract: A temporary, substitute janitor filed a complaint alleging that his former employer had violated Title VII by requiring him to work in a hostile work environment and then firing him because of his race. The employer, however, told of the plaintiff having acted strangely. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment. This article explains that, while the court believed the plaintiff may have been treated rudely, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of race-based mistreatment, while the defendant had nondiscriminatory reasons for his termination. Nichols v. Michigan City Plant Planning Dept., No. 13-2893, June 19, 2014 (7th Cir.)
-
When falsehoods are filed – Retaliation case arises from employer’s investigation, response
January / February 2015
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 933
Abstract: When a sheriff’s department undertook disciplinary actions against a group of officers after determining that the officers had made a false EEOC filing alleging racial harassment, the officers filed another EEOC claim against the department. They alleged that they were being retaliated against for having complained of racial harassment. But the district court entered summary judgment in the employer’s favor, and the Second Circuit agreed. This article explains why. A sidebar looks at a precedential case involving false statements made outside the context of an EEOC charge. Cox v. Onondaga County Sheriff’s Dept., No. 12-1526-cv, July 23, 2014 (2nd Cir.) E.E.O.C. v. Total Sys. Servs., No. 99-13196., Aug. 7, 2000 (11th Cir.)
-
Two days: A Title VII case
November / December 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 630
Abstract: There’s no bright line test for establishing a hostile work environment. But two factors that courts commonly look at are the frequency and severity of the discriminatory conduct. This article covers Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered whether the use of a racially derogatory term over the course of two days could support a racial discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment under Title VII. Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., No. 13-1473, May 13, 2014 (4th Cir.)
-
The Family and Medical Leave Act – Refusal to rehire protected employee proves costly
November / December 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 781
Abstract: For employers, the process of granting an employee leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can be precarious. The risk of making a legal misstep can heighten even further when an employee is terminated following FMLA leave and then attempts to regain employment. This article explores the case of Jackson v. City of Hot Springs, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether a plaintiff had established that he’d been retaliated against for taking FMLA leave when his employer refused to rehire him. Jackson v. City of Hot Springs, Nos. 13-1772, 13-1875, May 12, 2014 (8th Cir.)
-
Considering a co-worker’s power to prompt a termination
November / December 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 599
Abstract: All employees presumably know that their supervisors have the power to terminate them. But employers need to be on guard when one co-worker is trying to get another terminated. This article discusses the case of Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., recently heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which provides an instructive example. Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp., No. 12-2226, May 23, 2014 (1st Cir.)
-
Can telecommuting be an accommodation? Sixth Circuit weighs in on growing ADA issue
November / December 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 926
Abstract: With mobile technology exploding and work/life balance a valid concern of many employers, telecommuting is more popular than ever. But could a telecommuting arrangement of four days per week be considered a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? This article looks at a recent case that addresses this very question: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Company. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Company, No. 12-2484, April 22, 2014 (6th Cir.) Rauen v. U.S. Tobacco Mfg. Ltd. Partnership, No. 01-3973, Feb. 10, 2003 (7th Cir.)
-
Vacation time or FMLA leave? Eleventh Circuit grapples with a question of qualification
September / October 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 858
Abstract: An employee requesting leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) may appear to be a relatively straightforward event, but not every leave request is quite so clear. This article discusses a case that determined whether an employee, who provided sufficient notice of leave, was truly qualified for FMLA protection. The verdict established that notice to an employer of unqualified leave doesn’t grant a plaintiff FMLA protection; leave needn’t be granted for a chronic condition unless it’s specifically connected to a period of incapacity or to treatment. Hurley v. Kent of Naples, Inc., No. 13-10298, March 20, 2014 (11th Cir.)
-
Scrutinizing a pension plan for age discrimination
September / October 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 627
Abstract: Can older employees be required to pay higher plan contribution rates than younger participants? This article examines a case in which a company determined that employees’ contribution rates would be determined by the person’s age when he or she joined the plan, since older employees’ contributions would earn interest for fewer years than those of younger participants. After two employees sued, an appellate court held that, if the only possible basis for retirement was reaching a certain age, the plan may have been justified. But a plan amendment that allowed certain employees to retire based solely on years of service caused the employer to lose the case. EEOC v. Baltimore County, No. 13-1106, March 31, 2014 (4th Cir.)
-
Confidentiality clause meets labor rights in NLRA case
September / October 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 531
Abstract: Confidentiality clauses are increasingly common to protect business data, but sometimes they can clash with an employee’s labor rights. This article looks at a case in which a terminated employee claimed that the employer’s confidentiality clause, which prohibited sharing company “financial information” and “personnel information,” conflicted with the employee’s right under the National Labor Relations Act to discuss wages with others — even though the clause didn’t explicitly prohibit employee discussion of wages. Flex Frac Logistics, LLC v. NLRB, No. 12-60752, March 24, 2014 (5th Cir.) Lutheran Heritage Village–Livonia, 7-CA-44877; 343 NLRB No. 75, Nov. 19, 2004 (NLRB)
-
Dropped connection – Telecom employee’s ADA claims get hung up in court
September / October 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 950
Abstract: Sometimes, even when an employer offers an ostensibly reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the employee in question isn’t satisfied. This article discusses a case in which a company only partly accommodated an employee’s request for a time shift change, claiming that meeting the request in full would violate seniority rules under a collective bargaining agreement. The appeals court concluded that the company’s accommodation met the standards for being “reasonable” under the ADA, but a sidebar cites a different case indicating that an employer who has made exceptions to a seniority rule in the past should be prepared to do so again as a reasonable accommodation. Hamedl v. Verizon, No. 12-4101-cv, Feb. 20, 2014 (2nd Cir.) U.S. Airways v. Barnett, No. 00-1250, April 29, 2002 (Supreme Court)