Employment Law Briefing
Showing 97–112 of 258 results
-
What happened in Vegas: An FMLA case
July / August 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 573
Abstract: When an ill woman approaching the end of her life expressed a desire to visit Las Vegas, her daughter requested unpaid leave from her employer so that she could accompany her mother on the trip. During their time together, she continued to serve as her mother’s primary caregiver while the two participated in tourist activities. Later, her employer terminated her for the unauthorized absences that accumulated during the trip. She sued, claiming violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This article looks at whether her assistance to her mother was covered by the definition of “care” for FMLA purposes. Ballard v. Chicago Park District, No. 13-1445, Jan. 28, 2014 (7th Cir.)
-
Unpacking USERRA’s equal treatment standard
July / August 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 814
Abstract: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was designed to protect the employment rights of on-duty military personnel. This article describes a case involving a plaintiff who alleged that that his company had violated USERRA by firing him while he was deployed. Specifically, he argued that it had violated the law by not placing his name on an exhibit, listing current employees, that it provided to a new owner — thus denying him a benefit not determined by seniority. Dorris v. TXD Services, No. 12-3096, Feb. 27, 2014 (8th Cir.)
-
From ADA to ADAAA – Disability case demonstrates broadened definition of “disability”
July / August 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 609
Abstract: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has evolved over the years. For example, in September 2008, Congress significantly broadened the definition of “disability” by enacting the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). This article looks at a recent case that demonstrates the impact of this important change. At issue was whether or not a “temporary condition” constituted a “disability” under the ADA. Summers v. Altarum Institute, No. 13-1645, Jan. 23, 2014 (4th Cir.)
-
Avoid the inappropriate – Supervisor’s dicey decisions drive harassment lawsuit
July / August 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1066
Abstract: This article examines a sexual harassment and retaliation case that addresses whether the harassing conduct alleged was “sufficiently severe or pervasive” for the plaintiff to prevail. Although the answer in this case was no, a sidebar discusses a case with a different outcome. In any event, it’s critical that employers properly train and regularly remind supervisors to avoid inappropriate situations with subordinates. Those that fail to do so can lead an employer down a long road of litigation and attorneys’ fees. Ponte v. Steelcase, Inc., No. 13-2011, Jan. 31, 2014 (1st Cir.) Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae, No. 11-7127, April 5, 2013 (D.C. Cir.)
-
Taking a contractual approach to an FMLA claim
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 619
Abstract: When a trucker returned from a leave stemming from issues with substance abuse, he was required to sign a Return to Work Agreement (RWA) proscribing drugs and alcohol. When he relapsed and was terminated, he claimed ADA and FMLA violations. The district court ruled in favor of the employer, and so did the appeals court. This article discusses how the contractual power of the RWA prevailed. Ostrowski v. Con-Way Freight, Inc., No. 12-3800, Oct. 30, 2013 (3rd Cir.)
-
Seventh Circuit puts finer point on adverse employment actions
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 653
Abstract: When a police officer charged his employer with race discrimination and retaliation, his claims were dismissed on technical grounds. When he offered the appeals court an amended complaint that omitted a previous charge that he’d been denied a shift-change request because of race, the defendants argued that he’d failed to allege specific facts indicating an adverse employment action. This article explains why the court disagreed, finding that his allegations were sufficient to plead that a denial of transfer was a materially adverse employment action in this instance. Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, No. 13-1200, Oct. 24, 2013 (7th Cir.) Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., No. 93-1840, Aug. 1, 1994 (7th Cir.) Oest v. Ill. Dep’t of Corrs., 240 F.3d 605, 612–13, 2001 (7th Cir.)
-
Intent to retire – Decision maker looms large in ADEA case
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 808
Abstract: When a school board eliminated the position of a long-serving African-American janitor, it attributed the decision to the employee’s stated intent to retire, as well as a budgetary shortfall. The employee believed this was pretextual and sued. As this article describes, the district court granted the board’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that, regardless of the supervisor’s knowledge or intent, the board genuinely — even if mistakenly — believed that the plaintiff wanted to retire. But the appeals court overruled, maintaining that the superintendent’s discriminatory animus could be imputed to the board because of her influence on its adverse employment action. Harris v. Powhatan County School Board, No. 12-2091, Oct. 22, 2013 (4th Cir.)
-
Is that enough? How an age discrimination claim can move forward
May / June 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 910
Abstract: Two lauded employees, each with over 20 years of experience, were passed over for higher positions. They alleged age discrimination, but because they introduced the idea that personal friendship played a role in the matter, the trial court determined that they were unable to show the “but-for” causation necessary to prevail. However, as this article explains, an appeals court decided that their claim could withstand a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, a sidebar discusses a previous, related case in which the Supreme Court seemingly made it more difficult for employees to allege age discrimination against employers. Leal v. McHugh, No. 12-40069, Sept. 26, 2013 (5th Cir.) Gross v. FBL Financial Services, No. 08-441, June 18, 2009 (Supreme Court) Smith v. City of Jackson, No. 03-1160, March 30, 2005 (Supreme Court) Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, No. 91-1600, April 20, 1993 (Supreme Court)
-
Were assessed attorneys’ fees an abuse of discretion?
March / April 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 614
Abstract: Did a district court go too far when it assessed a plaintiff more than $750,000 in attorneys’ fees? That was the question at the heart of a recent discrimination case. As this article shows, the appeals court determined that the case wasn’t groundless when filed, because of statements that had been made by one of the defendant’s representatives. But, once it became clear through discovery that those statements were inaccurate, the plaintiff should have reassessed its claims. The district court’s award of fees was upheld. EEOC v. Peoplemark, No. 11-2582, Oct. 7, 2013 (6th Cir.)
-
Upping the ante – USERRA case clarifies the “escalator principle”
March / April 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 663
Abstract: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination based on military service or obligation. One facet of the law, the “escalator principle,” requires that a veteran returning to his or her company be hired for a position that would be at least as high-ranking as one he or she would have had if not for the intervening military service. But is promotion reasonably certain if it’s not automatic? And should automatic promotion be the standard? This article looks at one case that addressed these issues. Rivera-Meléndez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, No. 12-1023, Sept. 20, 2013 (1st Cir.)
-
Age-related remarks lead employer to court
March / April 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 779
Abstract: Quips, wisecracks and verbal repartee can all play a role in a productive workplace. But when remarks turn inappropriate, even stray ones can have legal repercussions. This article looks at one case in which a terminated employee claimed discrimination based on age-related remarks from a supervisor. Johnson v. Securitas Security Services, No. 12–2129, Aug. 26, 2013 (8th Cir.)
-
Vicarious liability – Recent decision shows narrowed scope of “tangible actions”
March / April 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 921
Abstract: The doctrine of vicarious liability assigns legal responsibility for an injury to a person who didn’t cause the harm in question, but who has a particular relationship to the individual who acted negligently. This has long concerned employers, who could be at legal risk for interactions between employees that occur out of their control. This article discusses one case in which an employee claimed she was drugged and raped by her manager while off premises. No on-site harassment was at issue, but the employer might be vicariously liable if her “manager” were her “supervisor,” as defined by a recent Supreme Court decision. A sidebar takes a closer look at that decision. McCafferty v. Preiss Enterprises, No. 12-8039, Aug. 13, 2013 (10th Cir.) Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556, June 14, 2013 (Supreme Court)
-
Another WARNing shot regarding mass layoffs
January / February 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 772
Abstract: The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers to provide adequate notice of mass layoffs or plant closings. When a racetrack failed to do so, former employees filed a class action suit. The employer claimed it was entitled to the statutory defense of an unforeseeable business circumstance and, therefore, it wasn’t required to provide notice. It also asserted that what was occurring at the company was so publicized and obvious that the plaintiffs were effectively put on notice. The appeals court disagreed with both arguments. Sides v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., No. 12-14673, Aug. 5, 2013 (11th Cir.)
-
Totality of circumstances – Factoring “neutral incidents” into a harassment claim
January / February 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 649
Abstract: Just about every legal precedent comes with the disclaimer “depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.” When a worker claimed ongoing sexual harassment, the employer argued that many of the incidents complained of were “neutral” — in other words, not sexual. The appeals court then considered whether this particular set of circumstances should be considered in assessing the harassment claim. Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., No. 12-1518, Aug. 9, 2013 (6th Cir.) Williams v. CSX Transp. Co., No. 09-5564, June 28, 2011 (6th Cir.) Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., No. 92-1168, Nov. 9, 1993 (Supreme Court) Jackson v. Quanex, No.98-1515, Sept. 9, 1999 (6th Cir.)Abstract: Just about every legal precedent comes with the disclaimer “depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.” When a worker claimed ongoing sexual harassment, the employer argued that many of the incidents complained of were “neutral” — in other words, not…
-
Tread carefully when firing employees on FMLA leave
January / February 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 625
Abstract: Deciding to terminate any employee is risky. But the risk level associated with terminating those who have requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is markedly greater. After a nonprofit terminated an employee who was on FMLA leave — claiming performance-related reasons — the plaintiff sued. Ultimately, the appeals court sided with the employer, but the decision shows why it’s important for employers to tread carefully in such cases. Mercer v. Arc of Prince Georges County, No. 13-1300, July 11, 2013 (4th Cir.) Yashenko v. Harrah’s NC Casino Co., No. 05-1256, April 27, 2006 (4th Cir.) McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, No. 72-490, May 14, 1973 (Supreme Court)
-
Outside the law? Illegal immigrants seek to invoke FLSA protections
January / February 2014
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 935
Abstract: Employees hired illegally may seem outside the law in many respects. But are they? This article looks at a case that tackled the question of whether illegal immigrants may invoke the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the end, the appeals court determined that an employer cannot benefit from its own wrongdoing — by hiring unauthorized workers, it will face liability for any FLSA wage violations. A sidebar discusses a different case — in which an undocumented employee was fired after supporting a union campaign — with a different outcome. Lucas v. Jerusalem Café, No. 12-2170, July 29, 2013 (8th Cir.) Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 00-1595, March 27, 2002 (Supreme Court)