Employment Law Briefing
Showing 129–144 of 258 results
-
When it comes to retaliation claims, severity counts
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 669
Abstract: A postal worker taking medication for schizoaffective disorder faced insults from his supervisors due to his slow work pace, which was induced by the medication. As this article describes, he eventually resigned, and then sued. After losing two claims at the district court level, he appealed the claim of retaliatory harassment leading to constructive discharge. While the First Circuit sympathized, it ruled that he couldn’t establish his prima facie claim because the actions against him did not meet the standard of “materially adverse.” Alvarado v. Donahoe, No. 11-1686, July 19, 2012 (1st Cir.)
-
On notice (or not) – False Claims Act case reveals critical requirement
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 831
Abstract: After an external audit turned up possible improprieties in the use of grant money, a business manager went over the Executive Director’s head and raised these concerns directly with the Board of Directors. She was later terminated. She sued, claiming that her termination violated the False Claims Act (FCA). However, whistleblowers must clarify their intentions to win FCA protection; this article shows why the Tenth Circuit concluded that she had not done so. McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037, Aug. 6, 2012 (10th Cir.)
-
Disciplinary consistency: A Title VII case
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 627
Abstract: When a white casino worker was terminated for mishandling playing cards, she noted that six other supervisors had engaged in similar misconduct — but only two had been terminated. She sued the casino, alleging gender and race discrimination in violation of Title VII. This article shows how the Sixth Circuit used a “mixed-motive analysis” in finding for the plaintiff. Ondricko v. MGM Grand Detroit, No. 10-2133, August 8, 2012 (6th Cir.)
-
Americans with Disabilities Act – Competitive transfer policy not cleared for takeoff
March / April 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 859
Abstract: In trying to accommodate disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers have a variety of options. United Airlines placed disabled workers in vacant positions provided no better qualified candidates were in the running. This “competitive transfer” policy led to a lawsuit that claimed it violated the ADA. This article discusses how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled, taking into account two previous cases. A sidebar discusses a case in which a disabled employee sued after refusing her employer’s reassignment. EEOC v. United Airlines, Inc, No. 11-1774, March 7, 2012 (7th Cir.); EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling, No. 99-3281, Sept. 15, 2000 (7th Cir.); US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, No. 00-1250, April 29, 2002 (Supreme Court); Kallail v. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc., No. 11-2202, Sept. 4, 2012 (8th Cir.).
-
In treatment (or not): An FMLA case
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 877
Abstract: If an employee exceeds approved Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) time off for a medical procedure by visiting the doctor’s office at a separate location prior to the procedure, does that time qualify as "treatment"? No, according to the Seventh Circuit. This article discusses a case that illustrates the complexity of defining "treatment" according to the FMLA. Citation: Jones v. C &D Technologies, Inc., No. 11-3400, June 28, 2012 (7th Cir.)
-
All joking aside — Tenth Circuit addresses hostile work environment
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 765
Abstract: When a food service worker felt she was the object of racially insensitive jokes — even after her complaints to management — she requested a transfer to a different department. This was denied, and she was fired after she failed to return to work. She sued, alleging that she’d been subjected to a hostile work environment and then constructively discharged in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But had she been subjected to enough abuse to make her claim of a hostile work environment stick? This article looks at the Tenth Circuit’s verdict. Citation: Hernandez v. Valley View Hospital, No. 11–1244, June 26, 2012 (10th Cir.)
-
Same-sex discrimination cases pose added challenges
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1071
Abstract: Even under the most clear-cut circumstances, dealing with sexual harassment allegations poses challenges for employers. When same-sex discrimination is involved, however, the challenges are often compounded. This article discusses a case involving a worker who quit when he believed his employer was insufficiently responsive to his allegations of sexual harassment by a same-sex co-worker. The article also describes a test the Supreme Court adopted in 1998 to be used in same-sex cases, and why the Sixth Circuit ruled against the plaintiff in this present-day instance. A sidebar looks at the 1998 case. Citations: Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services, Inc., No. 10-2418, June 20, 2012 (6th Cir.). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., No. 96-568, March 4, 1998 (Supreme Court). Redd v. New York State Division of Parole, No. 10-1410-cv, May 4, 2012 (2nd Cir.)
-
You have been WARNed — Recent case addresses notice requirement for mass layoffs
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 714
Abstract: In late 2008, the national economic crisis hit the steel business hard — including U.S. Steel. When it laid off workers before the end of the year, the union sued, claiming that the company had not given 60 days’ notice, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The company claimed its actions were protected by the act’s "unforeseeable business circumstances" exception. This article explains why the Eighth Circuit agreed. Citation: United Steel Workers of America Local 2660 v. United States Steel Corporation, No. 11-3002, July 2, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Use your best (business) judgment — Equal Pay Act’s burden of proof put to the test
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 735
Abstract: Claiming that she was being paid less than a male co-worker who performed nearly identical duties, a nurse sued her employer under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. At trial, the judge gave the jury a "business-judgment" instruction that the plaintiff felt was inappropriate for an EPA case. This article notes that the Eighth Circuit agreed, but still affirmed the district court’s decision. Citation: Bauer v. Curators of the University of Missouri, No. 11-2758, June 6, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Does Title VII apply to the spouse of an illegal immigrant?
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 923
Abstract: Not long after a bank learned that one of its employees had joint accounts at the bank with a known undocumented alien — her husband — it fired her, concerned that fraudulent documentation may have been involved. She sued under Title VII, claiming national origin discrimination. The Seventh Circuit agreed with the lower court that it was the husband’s undocumented status, and not his national origin, that led to her discharge. The question then became whether Title VII protects against "alienage-based" discrimination. This article explains the court’s decision that it does not. Citation: Cortezano v. Salin Bank and Trust Company, No. 11-1631, May 21, 2012 (7th Cir.); Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Company, No. 414 U.S. 86, Nov. 19, 1973 (Supreme Court)
-
Temp to perm — ADA case turns on severity of employee’s injury
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1128
Abstract: After injuring her knee, a drugstore employee accepted an offer to return as a store manager — but with the understanding that she had some physical limitations. When her doctor decided that they were permanent, she was fired because she could "no longer perform the essential functions" of her job. She sued, alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The First Circuit examined whether these functions were indeed essential, and, if so, whether she could perform them with or without a reasonable accommodation. The Court decided against her, but a sidebar to this article discusses a case with a different outcome. Citation: Jones v. Walgreen Co., No. 11-1917, May 10, 2012 (1st Cir.); Valle-Arce v. Puerto Rico Ports Authority, No. 10-1102, July 8, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
No overtime for detailers, says the Supreme Court
November / December 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 679
Abstract: Do the job duties of pharmaceutical sales representatives, or "detailers," qualify for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? That was the question set before the U.S. Supreme Court in one recent case. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) submitted an amicus brief in favor of the plaintiffs’ position, but this article examines the reasons why the Court was unpersuaded. Citation: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., No. 11-204, June 18, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Parting words: Severance package sparks lawsuit
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 782
Abstract: Can an employer’s offer of a severance package constitute an adverse employment action? That was the question in a case heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Here the plaintiff sued her employer for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming she’d been offered a less favorable severance package than similarly situated male employees. The district court found that "the terms and conditions of the severance package do not constitute an actionable adverse employment action under Title VII" — but this article explains why the Fourth Circuit felt otherwise. Citation: Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, No. 11-1218, March 16, 2012 (4th Cir.); Hishon v. King & Spalding, No. 82-940, May 22, 1984 (Supreme Court)
-
No good deed goes unpunished — Retroactive FMLA leave plays key role in lawsuit
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 771
Abstract: After a supervisor noticed that an employee had an unacceptably high number of absences, she asked her whether she wanted to retroactively apply any Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) days to absences she’d had earlier because of a back injury. The employee agreed, but was nevertheless terminated after repeated unapproved absences. The employee then brought an FMLA action for interference. This article explains why the Eighth Circuit wasn’t sympathetic. Citation: Lovland v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 11-2076, March 16, 2012 (8th Cir.)
-
Is good attendance an essential job function?
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 721
Abstract: This article looks at a case that asks whether an employer failed to accommodate a disabled employee who had requested exemption from the employer’s attendance policy. In making this determination, the court had to answer the question: Is good attendance an essential job function? The Ninth Circuit said "yes." Citation: Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Medical Center, No. 10-35811, April 11, 2012 (9th Cir.)
-
Please demote me — Employer bucks policy, prompting reverse discrimination case
September / October 2012
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1074
Abstract: Most employees don’t ask to be demoted. But when an employer’s policy is to demote problematic workers rather than terminate them, submitting a demotion request makes a little more sense. This article discusses a case in which a worker was terminated rather than demoted. Noting that several employees of different races were allowed to take demotions, she sued, alleging reverse discrimination. This article explains why the Seventh Circuit ruled against her, while a sidebar looks at a different case with different results. Citation: Good v. University of Chicago Medical Center, No. 11-2679, March 12, 2012 (7th Cir.); Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., No. 05-1654, Feb. 7, 2006 (7th Cir.)