ELB
Showing 17–32 of 258 results
-
Court looks beyond face value in age discrimination decision
November / December 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 567
Abstract: When a terminated employee took the comments of his company’s CEO at face value, he concluded that age discrimination was at work. As this article relates, it was up to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to put those comments in context and decide whether the employer had indeed violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Aulick v. Skybridge Americas, Inc., No. 16-2648, June 19, 2017 (8th Cir.)
-
Right to associate – Employees’ off-duty conduct isn’t always protected
November / December 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 556
Abstract: When wife-swapping sheriff’s deputies were threatened with the loss of their jobs, they claimed termination would violate their First Amendment right to associate. This article summarizes the case, Coker v. Whittington, and explains why the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the deputies’ employers. Coker v. Whittington, No. 16-30679, May 23, 2017 (5th Cir.) Obergefell v. Hodges, Nos. 14-556, June 26, 2015 (U.S.)
-
Promotion or bust – How far must employers’ ADA accommodation efforts go?
November / December 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 710
Abstract: How far should employers go to accommodate disabled employees? This article discusses a case where the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that employers don’t have to promote disabled employees to positions they wouldn’t otherwise qualify for. Also, the court said, employees have a duty to work with their employers to find a reasonable accommodation. Brown v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, No. 16-1971, May 4, 2017 (7th Cir.)
-
Mark this: Consistency is key to avoiding Title VII suits
November / December 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 993
Abstract: In EEOC v. Consol Energy Inc., the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether an employer did enough to accommodate an employee whose religious beliefs conflicted with a job requirement. This article describes the facts and why the court held that it’s not an employer’s place to question the correctness of an employee’s religious understandings. A sidebar provides an example of a similar Title VII case that had a different outcome. EEOC v. Consol Energy Inc., No. 16-1406, June 12, 2017 (4th Cir.) Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 04-1475, December 1, 2004 (1st Cir.)
-
Why employers can never be too careful when it comes to disability leave
September / October 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 661
Abstract: A serious illness required one employee to request multiple leaves of absence from his job. It was up to the Sixth Circuit to determine whether, when the employee was terminated, his employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. This article reviews the case and the court’s determination on the employee’s failure-to-accommodate claim. Green v. BakeMark USA, LLC, No. 16-3141, March 27, 2017 (6th Cir.)
-
Growth — not age — motivates employer to take adverse action
September / October 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 571
Abstract: Job positions and corresponding duties can change over time. But if employers don’t communicate such changes with employees, they could end up in court. That’s what happened in Nash v. Optomec, Inc. This article discusses how the Eighth Circuit ruled in this age discrimination case. Nash v. Optomec, Inc., No. 16-2186, March 1, 2017 (8th Cir.)
-
Don’t shoot the messenger – Court decides whether FLSA protects laid-off employee
September / October 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 822
Abstract: Can a terminated employee who complained to her employer claim retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) if the complaint was made on a co-worker’s behalf? This was the question before the Fifth Circuit in Starnes v. Wallace. This article describes the facts and what constitutes a prima facie case of retaliation pursuant to the FLSA. Starnes v. Wallace, No. 15-41341, Feb. 24, 2017 (5th Cir.)
-
Title VII claim – Appeals court schools community college in sex discrimination
September / October 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 940
Abstract: In what appears to be a judicial trend, the Seventh Circuit recently decided that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The court in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana was guided by several Supreme Court decisions regarding sex discrimination. This article examines those cases and the theories set forth by the employee in Hively. A sidebar looks at a similar Eleventh Circuit case with a different result. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, No. 15-1720, Apr 4, 2017 (7th Cir.) Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc. No. 96-568, March 4, 1988 (U.S.) Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, No. 15-15234, March 27, 2017 (11th Cir.) Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, No. 87-1167, May 1, 1989 (U.S.)
-
Crime doesn’t pay — even when the perpetrator is injured
July / August 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 637
Abstract: In a recent Seventh Circuit case, the court decided whether an employee was terminated in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act. But confusion over “cause” vs. “proximate cause” at the trial court level, and the employee’s attempt to assert certain claims on appeal that he hadn’t asserted earlier, made for a surprising conclusion. Koziara v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 16-1577, October 31, 2016 (7th Cir.)
-
Conflict of interest dooms FMLA discrimination claim
July / August 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 576
Abstract: When an employee plaintiff claimed that a trial court’s evidence rulings were an abuse of discretion, the Tenth Circuit stepped in. This article outlines the employee’s claim of discrimination under the FMLA and how the appeals court reviewed the three prongs that establish a prima facie claim of interference. Gaige v. SAIA Motor Freight Line, LLC, No. 16-6191, Nov. 29, 2016 (10th Cir.)
-
Essential truths – Reasonable accommodation doesn’t always satisfy ADA claims
July / August 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 735
Abstract: In an Eleventh Circuit ADA case, an employee did not establish that she could perform the essential functions of her position, with or without a reasonable employer accommodation. As this article concludes, in certain circumstances a reasonable accommodation may not exist. Nevertheless, employers should try to find one anyway. Bagwell v. Morgan County Commission, No. 15-15274, Jan. 18, 2017 (11th Cir.)
-
Let the jury decide – Court supports emotional distress damages in FLSA case
July / August 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 851
Abstract: Many courts have considered whether the FLSA allows a retaliation victim to recover damages for emotional distress. But as this article details, the Fifth Circuit recently had the additional task of determining whether the FLSA protects a nonemployee spouse from employer backlash. A sidebar describes a similar FLSA case. Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC, No. 15-10932, December 19, 2016 (5th Cir.) Travers v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc., No. 13-1438, December 12, 2013 (1st Cir.)
-
Does USERRA protect employees from compelled arbitration?
May / June 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 571
Abstract: Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, members of the military are protected from losing their civilian jobs and employment benefits when they return from active duty. However, as a recent Ninth Circuit ruling made clear, there are limits to those protections. Specifically, there is no prohibition on mandatory arbitration. Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc., No. 14-56374, October 14, 2016 (9th Cir.) CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948, January 10, 2012 (U.S.)
-
Highlighting the difference between FMLA leave and vacation
May / June 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 668
Abstract: When an employee was discharged after taking time off from work, he sued his former employer for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This article discusses the Fourth Circuit case, including why the court distinguished between medically necessary FMLA leave and vacation. Sharif v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 15-1747, October 31, 2016 (4th Cir.)
-
How reimbursement policies can get employers into hot water
May / June 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 700
Abstract: Paying employees a per diem to cover meal expenses can raise certain compensation questions that need to be decided in court. This article reviews a Tenth Circuit case, explaining why the court decided that the employer didn’t violate the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to include reimbursement payments in regular rate of pay calculations. Sharp v. CGG Land (U.S.) Inc., No. 15-5113, November 4, 2016 (10th Cir.) Newman v. Advanced Tech. Innovation Corp., No. 13-1132, April 18, 2014 (1st Cir.)
-
ADA accommodation – Court ruling helps at least one employee breathe easier
May / June 2017
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 984
Abstract: Notification that an employee needs an ADA accommodation triggers the employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process. The employee in a recent Eighth Circuit case proved that she’d notified her employer of physical restrictions following surgery. But, as this article explains, the court found that the employer hadn’t held up its end. A sidebar summarizes a case where it was the employee who dropped the ball. Kowitz v. Trinity Health, No. 15-1584, October 17, 2016 (8th Cir.) E.E.O.C. v. Product Fabricators, Inc., No. 13-2103, August 15, 2014 (8th Cir.)