ELB
Showing 161–176 of 258 results
-
No prejudice – Eighth Circuit sidesteps quirky aspect of FMLA case
November / December 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 778
Abstract: When an employee misses work for an extended period because of an illness or injury, it can create many uncertainties for his or her employer — especially when questions of allowable leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) come into play. This article looks at one case that illustrates the dangers of an employer mishandling the critical details of FMLA leave. Hearst v. Progressive Foam Technologies, Inc., No. 10-1253, June 8, 2011 (8th Cir.)
-
Final EEOC regulations change the meaning of “disability”
November / December 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 745
Abstract: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) significantly changed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This year the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) amended its regulations to harmonize with the ADAAA. This article shows how the final EEOC regs broaden the legal meaning of the word “disability” in ways every employer should know. Sutton et al. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 97-1943, June 22, 1999 (Supreme Court) Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, No. 00-1089, Jan. 8, 2002 (Supreme Court)
-
Beware of the cat’s paw – Theory of subordinate bias looms large in ADEA case
November / December 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 882
Abstract: The “cat’s paw” theory holds that an employer can be held liable for the discriminatory conduct of a supervisor who contributes to a termination decision. In a recent case, one discharged employee invoked this theory, but the court rejected his plea because it decided he would have been fired regardless of the claimed animus. Nonetheless, this article highlights the danger of placing too much influence in the hands of lower-level supervisors. A sidebar looks at two additional examples of what could trigger liability under the cat’s paw theory. Simmons v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc., No. 09-1558, June 2, 2011 (10th Cir.) Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 09-400, March 1, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
Supreme Court doesn’t buy Wal-Mart workers’ case
November / December 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 589
Abstract: In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision denying class certification for female Wal-Mart employees alleging gender bias. This was the largest civil rights class action lawsuit in U.S. history and represents a substantial victory for employers. But it hasn’t eliminated employment class action suits. This article examines the Court’s opinion and explains why plaintiff classes still have some options for bringing a class action lawsuit. Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277, June 20, 2011 (Supreme Court) United States v. City of New York, 683 F. Supp. 2d 225, 273, Jan. 13, 2010 (Eastern District of New York)
-
Employer, pregnant worker clash over frequent absences
September / October 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 592
Abstract: Work/life balance is an important human resources concept. But when an employee tips the scales more toward “life” than “work,” conflicts may arise. This article looks at the case of a newly employed pregnant woman who was not yet eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but who took frequent absences. She claimed that her termination was a “constructive discharge” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Trierweiler v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 10-1343, April 8, 2011 (8th Cir.)
-
Drawing the line on customer abuse of employees
September / October 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 752
Abstract: There’s a saying: “The customer is always right.” But, when it comes to employee discrimination and harassment at the hands of customers, this isn’t true. This article looks at a case in which an aide at a care center was repeatedly harassed by a resident. But, when she called him a profanity, she was fired by an administrator who was unaware of her complaints about the resident. Aguiar v. Bartlesville Care Center, No. 10-5002, April 18, 2011 (10th Cir.)
-
Don’t go easy – ADA case reveals risk of lenient performance evaluations
September / October 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 646
Abstract: Employers that accommodate a worker under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may feel obliged to “go easy” on that employee during performance evaluations. But, as revealed in one case, failing to exercise objectivity in a job review could leave the employer vulnerable in a lawsuit. A disabled employee with good performance reviews obtained a new position in her agency. She was then judged to be error-prone and was terminated within the probationary period. Was she the victim of discrimination, or had she earlier received lenient evaluations? This article examines the court’s ruling. Whitfield v. State of Tennessee, No. 09-6488, March 25, 2011 (6th Cir.)
-
Volunteer or employee? Golf coach looks for overtime green in FLSA case
September / October 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 873
Abstract: Teachers or other staff members will often take on additional leadership duties, but it’s long been a contentious matter as to whether the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) should cover these volunteers. In one case, a school board employee served as the golf coach at a district high school and was paid a stipend. Following a Department of Labor guidance letter, the board decided to continue allowing nonexempt employees to coach but discontinued its policy of paying overtime. The employee sued. This article discusses the court’s ruling, while a sidebar looks at whether for-profit businesses qualify for an FLSA exemption in regard to interns. Purdham v. Fairfax County School Board, No. 10-1048, March 10, 2011 (4th Cir.)
-
Up with EAPs – Company benefit helps mitigate employee lawsuit
July / August 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 706
Abstract: This article discusses a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had to decide whether a terminated employee’s alcoholism constituted a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act or a serious health condition under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The defendant’s employee benefit — its Employee Assistance Program — played a role in the outcome. Ames v. Home Depot Incorporated, No. 09-4151, Jan. 6, 2011 (7th Cir.)
-
Seven-week leave prompts FMLA lawsuit
July / August 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 677
Abstract: The Family and Medical Leave Act entitles an employee to take up to 12 weeks annually to care for his or her spouse (or certain other family members) — if the spouse has a serious health condition. But does a spiritual pilgrimage constitute medical care? This article looks at the case of a worker who was terminated for taking a seven-week leave after producing certification that, in the employer’s opinion, did not adequately attest to her husband’s medical condition. Tayag v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, No. 10-1169, Jan. 27, 2011 (1st Cir.)
-
Off the wall: Office décor prompts religious discrimination case
July / August 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 793
Abstract: A rental complex discharged two employees who had refused to remove a religious poster from an apartment management office. The couple sued, claiming that the company had intentionally discriminated against them because of their religion, failed to accommodate their sincerely held religious beliefs and retaliated against them. This article explains the appeals court’s split decision regarding the district court’s ruling on these three points. Dixon v. Hallmark Companies, Inc., No. 10-10047, Dec. 9, 2010 (11th Cir.)
-
Who’s behind this decision? Supreme Court looks at discriminatory bias in termination
July / August 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 800
Abstract: Can an employer be held liable for the discriminatory bias of supervisors who influenced an adverse employment decision — even if those supervisors didn’t make the ultimate adverse decision? This was a question that rose all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case in which an Army Reservist sued his employer under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). This article explains the Court’s decision, while a sidebar explains why an appeals court had earlier come to a different conclusion. Staub v. Proctor Hospital, No. 09-400, March 1, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
You leave, you pay – Employer tries to recoup training costs from departing staff
May / June 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 909
Abstract: Training is an essential part of any job. But is it a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employees to pay back training costs if they resign their positions within a certain time frame? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said “no” in regard to a former police officer who filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. But a sidebar discusses another case in which certain employer deductions were judged to be a kickback. Gordon v. City of Oakland, No. 09-16167, Nov. 19, 2010 (9th Cir.) Cao v. Wu Liang Ye Lexington Restaurant Inc., 1:2008cv03725, April 18, 2008 (N.Y. Southern District)
-
Resignation or constructive discharge?
May / June 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 627
Abstract: After a male firefighter proofread a female co-worker’s grievance before slipping it under the supervisor’s door, he initially denied any involvement but later told the truth. At a hearing, the Public Safety Chief gave him the choice between resigning voluntarily and being terminated. He resigned, but then filed a racial discrimination and retaliation complaint in district court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit looked into whether the plaintiff’s resignation was actually a “constructive discharge” because it occurred immediately following a disciplinary hearing. Ross v. City of Perry, No. 09-15392, Sept. 22, 2010 (11th Cir.)
-
Employee decries company response in harassment lawsuit
May / June 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 830
Abstract: When a worker repeatedly complained about a co-worker’s sexual harassment, the company repeatedly warned the offender and, after conducting an investigation, transferred him to a different department. Nonetheless, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she’d been subjected to sexual harassment. Had the company done enough to prevent it? That was the issue that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit weighed. Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., No. 09-1465, Nov. 17, 2010 (8th Cir.)
-
A salute to USERRA – Military service law offers employees broad protection
May / June 2011
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 726
Abstract: The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) was signed into law to encourage noncareer military service, minimize service-related disruptions and prevent discrimination against service members. When a U.S. Army Reservist who’d been passed over for promotion sued his employer, claiming it had violated USERRA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected his arguments — except one. Vega-Colón v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, No. 09-1861, October 28, 2010 (1st Cir.)