ELB

Showing 145–160 of 258 results

  • The amendment effect — ADA changes put to the test in recent case

    July / August 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 869

    Abstract: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a person is disabled if he or she suffers from a physical or mental impairment (the first prong) that substantially limits (the second prong) one or more major life activities (the third prong). This article discusses an employee who sued her former employer for failure to accommodate her medical condition and for wrongful termination. At issue was the language used to establish the last two prongs, in light of recently revised Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations. Citation: Allen v. SouthCrest Hospital, No. 11-5016, Dec. 21, 2011 (10th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Step carefully when terminating employees on FMLA leave

    July / August 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 719

    Abstract: A fast-food restaurant fired an employee it suspected of stealing — but it didn’t do itself any favors by waiting nearly two weeks before terminating her, and doing so on her first day back from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. This article shows how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the "honest belief rule" in determining whether or not the employer had violated the law. Citation: Donald v. Sybra, Incorporated, No. 10-2153, Jan. 17, 2012 (6th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Subjective criteria can pose risks in promotion decisions

    July / August 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 799

    Abstract: When an African-American IRS employee applied for a higher position, he and three other candidates underwent an evaluation process consisting of objective criteria and a subjective interview. When he was passed over in favor of a Caucasian female with less education and experience, he sued, claiming that IRS officials had used a subjective evaluation process to create a legitimate explanation for its discriminatory practice. This article explains why the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the plaintiff. Citation: Hamilton v. Geithner, No. 10-5419, Jan. 17, 2012 (Dist. of Columbia Cir.)

    Read More

  • Asking the wrong questions — Employer faces lawsuit for inquiring about plaintiff’s retirement

    July / August 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1097

    Abstract: When a 54-year-old U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employee was passed over for promotion in favor of a younger employee, he sued. As this article explains, at issue was whether an agency personnel spreadsheet known as the Capable Workforce Matrix served as a pretext for age discrimination. Because, after receiving the job applications, two hiring panel members had allegedly requested information about projected retirement dates to be incorporated into the matrix, the appeals court sided with the plaintiff. A sidebar notes a different case in which a stray remark also led to age discrimination allegations, but with a different result. Citation: Shelley v. Geren, No. 10-35014, Jan. 12, 2012 (9th Cir.); Gross v. FBL Financial Services, No. 08-441, June 18, 2009 (Supreme Court); Moss v. BMC Software, Inc., No. 09-20488, July 2, 2010 (5th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Absent while on FMLA leave

    May / June 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 695

    Abstract:Terminating an employee for repeatedly failing to report his or her absences may seem understandable enough. But what if that worker believes the absences are covered under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)? An appeals court faced such a question in a case in which the plaintiff had unintentionally overstayed her medical leave. Citation: Twigg v. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, No. 10-3118, Oct. 13, 2011 (10th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Supreme Court rules on the "ministerial exception"

    May / June 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 750

    Abstract: The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod categorizes its teachers in two ways: 1) "called," those regarded as having been called to teach by God, and 2) "lay," everyone else. In one instance, a called teacher was replaced by a lay teacher during disability leave and refused a deal that included her resignation. When she threatened to sue, she was terminated. The school claimed a "ministerial exception" that was protected by the First Amendment. This article explains why the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an appeals court decision that sided with the teacher. Citation: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553, Jan. 11, 2012 (Supreme Court)

    Read More

  • Qualification before accommodation — Ninth Circuit addresses EEOC guidelines in ADA case

    May / June 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 960

    Abstract: One cannot obtain protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) unless he or she clearly qualifies for it. This was the key issue in a case in which a school district’s Board of Trustees denied provisional teaching authorization to a special education teacher who’d been unable to renew her certificate during a major depressive episode. Soon afterward, they terminated her because she’d violated the terms of her contract by allowing her certification to lapse. She sued, alleging that the Board violated the ADA by discriminating against her because of her disability. This article discusses the appeals court’s ruling. Citation: Johnson v. Board of Trustees Boundary County School District, No. 10-35233, Dec. 8, 2011 (9th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Exempt or owed overtime pay? — FLSA case reinforces importance of employee classification

    May / June 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1041

    Abstract: This article discusses a case in which the plaintiffs, all former sales managers, sued in federal court claiming that they’d been misclassified as exempt "administrative" employees and were entitled to unpaid overtime pay. There follows a description of the three-part test used to determine whether a particular employee is administratively exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements regarding pay. The article then explains why the court found against the plaintiffs. A sidebar reveals a different outcome in a similar case. Citation: Hines et al. v. State Room, Inc. et al., No. 10-2298, Nov. 28, 2011 (1st Cir.). In re Novartis Wage and Hour Litigation, No. 09-0437-cv, July 6, 2010 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • USERRA case addresses commission-based employees

    March / April 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 802

    Abstract: A successful financial advisor went on leave when he was activated for military duty, but, upon his return, he was offered accounts that would generate virtually no commissions. He successfully sued under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). This article explains some of the requirements of that act. Citation: Serricchio v. Wachovia Securities, No. 10-1590-cv, Sept. 13, 2011 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • The inherent risks of a lack of accountability

    March / April 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 785

    Abstract: An associate surgeon made several allegations that the residency director’s behavior toward her and other women was consistently inappropriate and demeaning. When her medical credentials were up for review by the hospital’s credentials committee, the residency director presented her in an unfavorable light, and the committee ordered counseling for her. Upon review, the chief medical officer didn’t tell the committee about the plaintiff’s allegations against the residency director, and the committee reaffirmed. The plaintiff successfully sued. This article explains that even high-ranking professionals must follow the law. Citation: Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Nos. 08-2026, 09-1597, 09-1603, 09-1731, Aug. 29, 2011 (1st Cir.)

    Read More

  • Choose words carefully — College administrator’s comment spurs ADA lawsuit

    March / April 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 783

    Abstract: A mentally disabled worker for a community college had been repeatedly denied promotion. He filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When he later asked a school HR official what he should be doing differently, he essentially was told he should not be suing his employer. This article explains why that comment endangered the college’s case when the worker later sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Citation: Dickerson v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 522, No. 10–3381, September 16, 2011 (7th Cir.)

    Read More

  • What did he say? — ADEA decision centers on employee’s alleged repeated verbal abuse

    March / April 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1055

    Abstract: When a 65-year-old employee resigned after alleged repeated age-related abuse, he filed suit, claiming a hostile work environment. However, this type of claim isn’t addressed in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the Fifth Circuit had never before held that Title VII could be used to address a claim of hostile work environment based on age. Nevertheless, the court held that a "plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim based on age discrimination under the ADEA may be advanced in this court." This article explains the court’s reasoning, while a sidebar shows why the court also concluded that the plaintiff had valid grounds for his "constructive discharge" claim. Citation: Dediol v. Best Chevrolet, Inc., No. 10-3076, Sept. 12, 2011 (5th Cir.). Crawford v. Medina General Hospital, No. 95-3243, Sept. 24, 1996 (6th Cir.)

    Read More

  • No hire, no retaliation — One FLSA case gives rise to another

    January / February 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 775

    Abstract: After a prospective employee admitted to having commenced a lawsuit against her former employer, her job offer was withdrawn. But was she protected as an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act? This article discusses the court’s ruling. Citation: Dellinger v. Science Applications International Corp, No. 10-1499, Aug. 12, 2011 (4th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Assessing ADA protection for recovering addicts

    January / February 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 732

    Abstract: A plaintiff who’d completed an inpatient drug rehabilitation program asked his employer whether he could return to work. He was told yes, but with reduced compensation. He filed a lawsuit alleging that he was subject to unlawful discrimination. In response, the employer argued that he wasn’t protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act because, it asserted, he’d still been a drug user when he’d asked to be rehired. This article looks at whether the one month that the plaintiff had spent in the treatment program qualified him for protection under the ADA’s safe harbor provision for people not currently using drugs. Citation: Mauerhan v. Wagner Corporation, Nos. 09-4179 & 09-4185, April 19, 2011 (10th Cir.)

    Read More

  • Third Circuit addresses allegedly discriminatory PIP

    January / February 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 1040

    Abstract: A performance improvement plan (PIP) is supposed to help an employee keep his or her job. But does requiring an employee to participate in a PIP constitute an adverse employment action that could establish the basis for an age discrimination case? This article discusses a case that addressed that question, while a sidebar looks at another case that dealt with whether failure to investigate a discrimination complaint constitutes an adverse employment action. Citations: Reynolds v. Department of Army, No. 10-3600, July 22, 2011 (3rd Cir.). Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, No. 97-569, June 26, 1998 (Supreme Court). Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., No. 08-5013, May 14, 2010 (2nd Cir.)

    Read More

  • Is that your final answer? — Polygraph law put to the test in Eleventh Circuit case

    January / February 2012
    Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing

    Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50

    Word count: 814

    Abstract: When may an employer legally request that a staff member undergo a polygraph examination? After a bank discovered that money had gone amiss, surveillance video and employee testimony did not discover that a particular manager had stolen the money, but that he had violated security policies. After he refused to take a polygraph test, he was fired. This article looks at the court’s decision, which highlights the four conditions employers must meet before they may lawfully request that their employees take a polygraph test. Citation: Cummings v. Washington Mutual, No. 10-10706, Aug. 22, 2011 (11th Cir.)

    Read More