Employment Law Briefing
Showing 113–128 of 258 results
-
History lesson: A Title VII case
November / December 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 812
Abstract: A bank employee with a record of mixed performance reviews was ultimately replaced, but was offered a different position. She filed a suit under Title VII, alleging disparaging racial remarks made by a former supervisor. But, as this article explains, the court found her discrimination claims to be without merit, citing, among other reasons, her inability to link the disparaging remarks with her negative performance reviews and replacement (the alleged adverse employment action). Muor v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 12-2757, June 13, 2013 (8th Cir.) Bassett v. City of Minneapolis, No.99-1147, April 12, 2000 (8th Cir.)
-
Danger zone – Retaliation case looks to Supreme Court precedent
November / December 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 678
Abstract: In 2011, the Supreme Court allowed an employee to bring a retaliation claim under Title VII when he was fired after his fiancée, a co-worker, filed a discrimination charge against their mutual employer. But what about a case in which: 1) a husband and wife work for the same employer, 2) the wife is involved in a discrimination case against the employer, 3) the husband moves to a new employer but is soon terminated, and 4) he alleges that the termination was facilitated by employees who had also made the move and were retaliating against the husband for the wife’s actions? This article discusses just who falls within the “zone of interests” protected by Title VII. Byron Underwood v. Department of Financial Services State of Florida, No. 12-14711, April 25, 2013 (11th Cir.) Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, No. 09-291, Jan. 24, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
Following an “interactive process” under the ADA
November / December 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 619
Abstract: When a warehouse worker with vision problems was ultimately terminated, he filed a charge with the district court, alleging that the company had unlawfully discriminated against him by failing to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for his disability, resulting in his discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under ADA regulations, an employer should engage in an interactive “accommodation discovery” process when an employee discloses a disability and expresses a desire for an accommodation. The company had not done so — but neither had the employee suggested an accommodation. As this article explains, that determined the case’s outcome. Wilson v. Dollar General Corp., No. 12-1573, May 17, 2013 (4th Cir.)
-
How do you define “employee”? Court scrutinizes shareholder’s role in discrimination case
November / December 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 938
Abstract: After a board member in a building products business experienced a “spiritual awakening,” he felt that he suffered discrimination by others. Following his termination, the board member filed Title VII claims of religious discrimination and hostile work environment. The company argued that he wasn’t an “employee” under Title VII and couldn’t invoke its protections. The district court agreed, and this article discusses the appeals court’s determination. A sidebar looks at a different case, which examined whether a volunteer may be considered an employee for Title VII purposes. Mariotti v. Mariotti Building Products, Inc., No. 11-3148, April 29, 2013 (3rd Cir.) Clackamas Gastroenterology Associate, P.C. v. Wells, No. 01-1435, April 22, 2003 (Supreme Court) Juino v. Livingston Parish Fire Dist. No. 5, No. 12-30274, May 30, 2013 (5th Cir.)
-
Why written job descriptions are so important
September / October 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 808
Abstract: An employee with an eye injury was told he had to obtain medical clearance to continue in his current position or else find a different type of job within the company. When he did neither and was terminated, he sued, claiming he had not been offered a reasonable accommodation according to the terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To receive protection under the act, he needed to establish that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of his job. This article notes five primary points the appeals court considered — including the written description for the plaintiff’s job — in determining whether the job duty in question was indeed an essential function. Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc., No. 12-2240, April 3, 2013 (8th Cir.)
-
Scouts get burned by knotted training program
September / October 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 660
Abstract: The danger of treating employees inconsistently is a recurring theme throughout employment law. This article discusses one case in which a Muslim executive in a local council of the Boy Scouts of America was recommended to participate in a professional development training program. But he wasn’t sent, while a Christian with similar qualifications was. In the lawsuit that followed, the appeals court found the council’s arguments unpersuasive. Aly v. Mohegan Council, Boy Scouts of America, No. 12-1292, March 22, 2013 (1st Cir.)
-
How much is enough? Sexual harassment case turns on amount of evidence
September / October 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 655
Abstract: To establish a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his or her employment. But just how severe or pervasive must misconduct be to meet this standard? This article examines a case in which an appeals court acknowledged the plaintiff’s mistreatment, but decided that the small number of incidents presented didn’t amount to enough to establish a hostile work environment. Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc., No. 11-16004, April 1, 2013 (9th Cir.)
-
Exempt vs. nonexempt – Special investigators challenge insurer’s classification
September / October 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 888
Abstract: This article examines a court case in which an insurance company’s investigators sued to be classified as nonexempt, believing that the company was taking advantage of their exempt status to avoid paying overtime. The court used a three-prong test in determining that the employees were indeed exempt. But the case shows why it’s important that employers carefully examine how an employee’s actual duties play into the company’s larger operations before deciding on an appropriate “exempt vs. nonexempt” classification. A sidebar looks at a similar case, in which the plaintiff argued that employees who spend less than 50% of their time on administrative functions don’t qualify as exempt. Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, No. 12-3107, March 21, 2013 (6th Cir.) Schaefer v. Indiana Mich. Power Co., No. 02-1401, Feb. 13, 2004 (6th Cir.) Altemus v. Federal Realty Investment Trust, No. 11-2213, July 31, 2012 (4th Cir.)
-
Rogue managers can lead to retaliation claims
July / August 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 953
Abstract: If managers, inadvertently or otherwise, make employees feel like they can’t complain about discrimination, the legal implications can be huge. This article discusses a case in which a woman filed a gender discrimination complaint with her company — and was later warned by a superior that, if she wished to keep her job, she “needed to become invisible” and “stay off the radar for the next six months at a minimum.” The court ruled that she had suffered a materially adverse employment action, but a sidebar discusses a similar case with a different outcome. Maron v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, No. 12-1146, Jan. 31, 2013 (4th Cir.) Hernandez v. Johnson, No. 12-50338, Feb. 22, 2013 (5th Cir.)
-
Got to get back: An FMLA case
July / August 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 626
Abstract: Many employees who take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) maximize their time off to rest and fully recuperate. But this article looks at a case in which the plaintiff sued his employer for not reinstating him earlier than the 12 weeks to which he was entitled. His contention was that the FMLA requires an employer to restore an employee to the position he’d held at the time FMLA leave began or to an equivalent position. The court’s decision came down to whether the plaintiff was able “to perform an essential job function” during his leave. James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, No. 12-1511, February 13, 2013 (7th Cir.)
-
Beware of the office romance – Messy breakup prompts sexual harassment case
July / August 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 879
Abstract: Employers — and employees — are often warned about the dangers of office romances. This article examines one court case that illustrates why. The female plaintiff lodged an administrative sexual harassment complaint against her male supervisor, who refuted her accusations. But her case was complicated by her previous sexual relationship with him. After her complaint was dismissed by her employer, she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued her a right to sue notice. Gerald v. University of Puerto Rico, No. 11-2143, Jan. 28, 2013 (1st Cir.)
-
Arbitration matters – Supreme Court decision expresses a key preference
July / August 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 558
Abstract: State law vs. federal law … which has priority? This article discusses a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a state court’s authority to declare two particular noncompetes null and void, despite the existence of arbitration clauses in the agreements. The Court’s decision is the latest in a series of cases in which it has expressed its preference for resolving cases through arbitration, wherever possible. Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard, No. 11-1377, Nov. 26, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Employers, know your break policies
May / June 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 551
Abstract: A hospital’s policy allowed some employees to be compensated for time they reported as spent working during a required break. A nurse eventually stopped reporting such time, but later sued for compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. As this article explains, the hospital’s consistent adherence to its procedures allowed it to prevail in the case. White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation, No. 11-5717, Nov. 6, 2012 (6th Cir.)
-
Gone but not forgotten: An ADA case
May / June 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 613
Abstract: A call about a job reference could bring a former employee right back into a company’s midst — as a liability risk. This article discusses a case in which a former employee of a company discovered that the business was mentioning his medical issues to prospective employers who were calling to check his references. He contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which alleged in court that the company had violated the confidentiality provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. But both the district and appeals courts disagreed. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, No. 11-2848, Nov. 20, 2012 (7th Cir.)
-
Are you consistent? The importance of following procedural precedents
May / June 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 845
Abstract: A 57-year-old Maintenance and Engineering Manager with a record of positive performance reviews found those reviews deteriorating after he came under a new supervisor. He was eventually fired and replaced by a 34-year-old who received positive reviews despite sanitation incidents on her watch. In addition, a series of hirings and firings favored younger employees. This article explains why the company’s failure to follow precedents and policy led the court to decide that the plaintiff should be allowed a trial on his claim of age discrimination. Hernán Acevedo-Parrilla v. Novartis Ex-Lax, Inc., No. 10-2276, October 10, 2012 (1st Cir.)
-
Assuming the worst – Termination may not preempt FMLA obligations
May / June 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 920
Abstract: This article discusses a case in which a nurse claimed that her employer had interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it terminated her after she’d left work because of an anxiety attack. A district court agreed with the defendant company that she had provided notice of her need for FMLA leave after her termination and was, therefore, too late. But the Eighth Circuit determined that she had met the “as soon as practicable” standard of the federal regulation. A sidebar looks at a different case, in which the plaintiff was indeed too late. Clinkscale v. St. Therese of New Hope, No. 12-1223, November 13, 2012 (8th Cir.) Bosley v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., No. 12-1290, Feb. 5, 2013 (8th Cir.)