ELB
Showing 209–224 of 258 results
-
Employer terminates worker before end of FMLA leave
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 530
Abstract: In New York, a worker was terminated before she’d exhausted her 12 weeks of FMLA leave. The twist: Her doctor had already concluded that she’d have been medically unable to return to work until after the leave ended. Her lawsuit alleged that she’d been denied her substantive rights under the FMLA and had been retaliated against for asserting those rights. The Second Circuit examined her claims. Roberts v. The Health Association, 308 Fed. Appx. 568 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2009)
-
Do salary deductions negate overtime exemption?
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 831
Abstract: Employers have long struggled with the exempt vs. nonexempt quandary. When an employee filed a lawsuit alleging that she’d not been paid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Sixth Circuit examined whether an employer’s policy of making deductions from plaintiffs’ wages caused those plaintiffs to lose their exempt status from required overtime payments because they failed the test for salaried status. Baden-Winterwood v. Life Time Fitness, 566 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. Ohio 2009). Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997).
-
At issue: Allegedly discriminatory hiring procedures
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 771
Abstract: When a woman was turned down for a job, she filed a lawsuit after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. In her case, she argued that the interview process was subjective and designed to exclude women and that various statistics regarding the defendant’s workforce and hiring practices created the inference she wasn’t hired because of her gender. This article looks at the Tenth Circuit’s decision, while a sidebar delves more deeply into her claim regarding statistics. Turner v. Public Service Company of Colorado, 563 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. Colo. 2009).
-
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act – Supreme Court rules on age as key factor
November / December 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 923
Abstract: When age plays only a supporting role in an age discrimination suit, the complexity of the decision deepens. When a 54-year-old administrator was reassigned, and many of his responsibilities were taken on by his younger subordinate, he felt he’d been demoted and filed suit. Eventually, the Supreme Court faced the question of whether a plaintiff must “present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction in a non-Title VII discrimination case.” But the Court had to first determine whether the burden of persuasion ever shifts to the party defending an alleged ADEA mixed-motives discrimination claim. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (U.S. 2009) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (U.S. 1989)
-
Regarding guns, OSHA and the workplace …
September / October 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 536
Abstract: When the Oklahoma legislature prohibited property owners from banning the storage of firearms locked in vehicles located on their property, a district court ruled that the prohibition was preempted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) general duty clause. An appeals court discussed its reasoning in reaching a different conclusion. Ramsey Winch Inc. v. C. Brad Henry, 555 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009)
-
Workforce reduction cuts along gender lines
September / October 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 604
Abstract: When a moving company laid off 12 women and one man, four of the laid-off female employees sued it in federal court, alleging gender discrimination on the theory of disparate impact. The plaintiffs challenged the company’s “particular employment practice” of selecting only predominantly female departments for the RIF, but the appeals court explained that the only questions were whether there was an identifiable disparity and, if so, whether the challenged employment practice could have caused the disparity. The court then ran a statistical analysis to help it arrive at a decision. Shollenbarger v. Planes Moving and Storage, 297 Fed. Appx. 483 (6th Cir. 2008)
-
Independent contractor vs. employee – Another battle is fought in the IT realm
September / October 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 915
Abstract: The independent contractor vs. employee battle has been fought in many sectors. Among the most common is the IT realm, where contract work often goes on for prolonged periods. When one spouse charged that her late husband’s relationship with his company should be considered that of an “employee” for compensation purposes, an appeals court took a look at the issues. Estate of Suskovich v. Anthem Health Plans of Va., Inc.
-
Who’s watching the watcher? Discrimination suit puts EEOC under scrutiny
September / October 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1053
Abstract: Like other litigants, federal, state and local governmental agencies sometimes act inappropriately in pursuing legal cases against those they accuse of having violated the law. When a truck driver claimed his employer had failed to accommodate his medical condition, an overzealous investigator rendered a conclusion that was ultimately refuted by both a district court and an appellate court. A sidebar discusses the damages award. This case reminds us that governmental agencies can be held accountable for their inappropriate conduct by the courts. EEOC v. Agro Distrib. LLC, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 959 (5th Cir. Miss. 2009)
-
Acting in good faith at question in FLSA case
July / August 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 568
Abstract: A five-restaurant chain failed to pay overtime to employees whose weekly hours totaled more than 40 when working at more than one location. When the case went to court, the owners claimed they weren’t aware that they owed overtime pay. And so arose the case of Chao v. Barbeque Ventures LLC, in which the Eighth Circuit had to decide whether those owners had acted in good faith to meet the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chao v. Barbeque Ventures, LLC, 547 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2008) Goldberg v. Kickapoo Prairie Broadcasting Co., 288 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1961)
-
The Family and Medical Leave Act – Think twice before firing someone on qualified leave
July / August 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1113
Abstract: In Martin v. Brevard County Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit decided whether a hire was eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The employee took the leave as scheduled, but the district notified him that it wouldn’t renew his contract because he hadn’t completed a required performance improvement plan. He sued, alleging interference with his FMLA rights and retaliation for taking leave. In this case, the employee won the right to go to trial. But a sidebar illustrates a different case in which an employee’s argument was rejected. Martin v. Brevard County Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) Bass v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 287 Fed. Appx. 808 (11th Cir. 2008)
-
Did employee’s cooperation lead to employer’s retaliation?
July / August 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 554
Abstract: One of the stated purposes of Title VII is to protect workers from employment retaliation. But does its protection extend to employees who are fired after they cooperate with an employer’s discrimination investigation — even though they themselves didn’t initially complain of the discrimination at issue? This was the question in one case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 129 S. Ct. 846 (U.S. 2009)
-
New wage bias act reverses Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision
July / August 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 797
Abstract: The new Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act reverses the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The new act permits employees to file charges within 180 or 300 days after each instance of receiving compensation based on discriminatory motives (as opposed to the same period after first discovering they’d been discriminated against). This article discusses the particulars of the case, while a sidebar uses a different case to show that, while the Ledbetter Act may open the door to more lawsuits, it doesn’t ease the actual criteria in proving them. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) Virgona v. Tufenkian Import-Export Ventures, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72139 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)
-
What constitutes salary for FLSA overtime rules?
May / June 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 479
Abstract: That was the question before the Second Circuit when a mortgage underwriter claimed she was entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act even though she was salaried. The Second Circuit held that she was ineligible for overtime pay because the employer never reduced her base salary, and any reductions because of excessive errors or failure to meet productivity targets didn’t affect her base salary. Havey v. Homebound Mortgage Inc., 547 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008)
-
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act – Treating workers equally is key
May / June 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 851
Abstract: The question before the Third Circuit was whether an employee who was fired after missing work as she recovered from an abortion could sue for pregnancy discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The court held that the employer’s disparate treatment of employees who were on sick leave permitted an inference that the firing was pretextual and ruled that a trial was necessary to resolve fact issues. Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, 527 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 2008)
-
Something in the air – Employee’s perfume prompts ADA dispute
May / June 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 699
Abstract: Was an employee who suffered a severe lifelong sensitivity to perfume disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act? A federal trial court found that she had shown sufficient evidence of significantly restricted ability to breathe as compared to the average person so that a trial was necessary to resolve whether she was disabled under the ADA. The court also held that the employer was required to engage in an interactive process to determine an appropriate accommodation. McBride v. City of Detroit, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87391 (E.D. Mich. 2007)
-
New rules interpret the Family and Medical Leave Act
May / June 2009
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1040
Abstract: Since its enactment in 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act has required employers to provide eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave in any rolling 12-month period for the birth or adoption of a child; to care for a parent, child, or spouse with a serious medical condition; or for an employee’s own serious medical condition. This article summarizes the highlights of the Department of Labor’s revised rules that took effect on Jan. 16, 2009.