ELB
Showing 241–256 of 258 results
-
Does job title exempt an employee from overtime pay?
September / October 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 758
Abstract: That was the question before the Eleventh Circuit. This article explains why the court held that a grocery chain’s laid-off “store managers” were entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act because their primary duties weren’t managerial. Rodriguez v. Farm Stores Grocery, Inc., F.3d, 2008 WL 215817, C.A.11 (Fla.), January 28, 2008 (NO. 06-13303, 06-13186).
-
WARN Act doesn’t require double payment of wages
July / August 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 558
Abstract: This article discusses laid-off employees’ claims that their ex-employer owed them wages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act even though they had begun to work for a successor company. The Fourth Circuit rejected their claim that they had suffered an employment loss, defined as “an employment termination other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement,” on the day the plant shut down. WARN requires employers to provide 60 days’ notice of the date of employment loss resulting from a shutdown, not from the date of the shutdown itself. Long v. Dunlop Sports Group Americas
-
A professor’s alleged in-office pornography leads to multiple claims
July / August 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 626
Abstract: The questions before the Second Circuit were: Did a professor discriminate against his secretary on the basis of gender? Did his leaving pornography on her computer subject her to a hostile work environment? Did she suffer an adverse employment action constituting retaliation when he reduced her duties, after she’d complained about the hostile work environment? This article describes the court’s answers and also includes a sidebar on a related decision. Patane v. Clark, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway v. White
-
Is depression covered by the ADA and FMLA?
July / August 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1028
Abstract: Did firing an employee who suffered from depression violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act? This article discusses why the Eighth Circuit decided that the employee hadn’t met other ADA requirements and also hadn’t given sufficient details about her depression to warrant triggering the FMLA. A sidebar discusses why the Eighth Circuit upheld a jury’s finding that a manager’s depression substantially limited his ability to think and concentrate, so his depression constituted a disability under the ADA. Rask v. Fresenius Medical Care, Battle v. United Parcel Service
-
Location, location, location – In discrimination cases, where a promotion is offered can make a difference
July / August 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 591
Abstract: The Seventh Circuit had to decide whether an employer racially discriminated against a black assistant manager when it offered to promote him to manage stores in black areas but not in predominantly white ones. This article explains why the court found that the employer had discriminated. Simple v. Walgreen Co.
-
Handbooks must be clear to average employee
May / June 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 585
Abstract: Could a teenage employee’s sexual-harassment case proceed to trial against Burger King even though she hadn’t followed the employee handbook’s harassment reporting procedure? That was the question before the Seventh Circuit. This article explains the court’s ruling that the reporting procedure was confusing even to adults. EEOC v. V & J Foods Inc., 507 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007)
-
Is direct notice required for FMLA leave?
May / June 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 929
Abstract: Sometimes an employee’s behavior can be enough to trigger an employer’s obligations under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This article discusses why the Seventh Circuit reached that conclusion. A sidebar discusses Congress’s first expansion of the FMLA since it was enacted in 1993. The National Defense Authorization Act amends the FMLA to require employers to provide 12 weeks of FMLA leave during a 12-month period to the spouses, children or parents of members of the armed forces called to active duty. The sidebar explains this and other mandates in the new law. Stevenson v. Hyre Electric Co., 505 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2007)
-
Employer didn’t violate duty to accommodate Sabbath observer
May / June 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 799
Abstract: This article explores a case in which the Sixth Circuit held that loss of pay couldn’t be considered discipline for an employee’s failure to comply with an employment requirement that conflicted with his religious beliefs. A sidebar discusses why the Seventh Circuit ruled that conduct trumps beliefs. It held that teachers and other public school employees have no right to make the promotion of religion part of their job descriptions. Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2007) Grossman v. South Shore Public School Dist., 507 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir. 2007)
-
“Sexual harasser” vs. “retaliation victim” – Court focuses on pretext, timing and connections
May / June 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 663
Abstract: This article discusses the First Circuit’s ruling that a company was justified in firing an employee for sexually harassing a female co-worker, and why the court rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that the firing was in retaliation for having complained about age discrimination. Bennett v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 507 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2007)
-
Involving the police held to be protected conduct
March / April 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 529
Abstract: An employer fired an employee who had called police during an employment dispute concerning sexual harassment. The employer argued that involving the police unnecessarily disrupted the workplace and so constituted a legitimate reason to fire him. But the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that Title VII protected his conduct and that employees don’t waive their rights to police protection simply because police involvement may disrupt a workplace.
-
Harassers needn’t know victim’s actual national origin
March / April 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 526
Abstract: This article discusses why the Fifth Circuit decided that a Muslim car salesman from India could sustain his suit for national origin and religious harassment even though his alleged harassers had mistakenly called him “Arab” and “Taliban.” EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, 496 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 2007)
-
Internal affairs – Don’t leave your business open to disparate-treatment charges
March / April 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 600
Abstract: Can a woman who had an extramarital affair with a male co-worker claim gender discrimination when the company fires only her, not the co-worker? This article discusses why the Seventh Circuit said no. Hossack v. Floor Covering Associates, 492 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2007)
-
Definitions key in determining FMLA eligibility
March / April 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 551
Abstract: The Sixth Circuit held that denying leave to care for an adult daughter and a newborn grandchild didn’t violate the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court found that the FMLA doesn’t entitle an employee to leave to care for a grandchild, and it authorizes leave to care for children who are 18 or older only if they suffer from a serious health condition and are “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.”Novak v. MetroHealth Medical Center, 503 F.3d 572 (6th Cir. 2007)
-
Is obesity a disabling impairment under the ADA?
March / April 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 733
Abstract: That was the question before the Eleventh Circuit. It had to decide whether obesity and related medical conditions constituted a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This article discusses why the court held that the plaintiff wasn’t disabled under the ADA. In a sidebar, this article also explains why a federal trial court held that episodic or medication-controlled conditions aren’t ADA-defined disabilities. Greenberg v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc., 498 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2007) Wofsy v. Palm Shores Retirement Community, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68819 (D.Fla. 2007)
-
Reverse religious discrimination alleged
January / February 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 701
Abstract: The question before the Ninth Circuit was whether a plaintiff could maintain her claim of reverse religious discrimination for her employer’s failure to promote her. Reversing a grant of summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had presented evidence showing that she was more qualified for the job than the promoted person and that a reasonable fact-finder could find that her evidence made the employer’s proffered reasons “unworthy of credence.” Noyes v. Kelly Services, 488 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2007)
-
ADA interactive process clarified
January / February 2008
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 819
Abstract: The Americans with Disabilities Act requires an interactive process between an employer and an employee who requests an accommodation because of a disability. This article reports the Eighth Circuit’s detailed description of the process. The article also discusses, in a sidebar, why the ADA doesn’t require an employer to reassign a qualified disabled employee to a vacant position if that would violate the employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory policy to hire the most qualified candidate. EEOC v. Convergys Customer Management Group, 491 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2007) Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, 493 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007)