ELB
Showing 49–64 of 258 results
-
Title VII in the courts – Exercise caution when considering transfer requests
July / August 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 600
Abstract: When might denying an employee’s transfer request be considered an adverse employment action under Title VII and Section 1983? This article considers the question, looking at an Eighth Circuit case in which a white male employee alleged discrimination when he was denied a lateral transfer. The article outlines what plaintiffs must prove to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Bonenberger v. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Dept., No. 14-3696, February 11, 2016 (8th Cir.)
-
Why job duties should line up with titles and salaries
July / August 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 746
Abstract: In Jaburek v. Foxx, the Seventh Circuit considered discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. As this article relates, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee claimed gender and national origin discrimination because she was paid less than other employees who did the same work and wasn’t promoted. Although the court found in the FAA’s favor, this article urges employers to ensure that workers’ job duties match their titles and pay grades. Jaburek v. Foxx, No. 15-2165, Jan. 13, 2016 (7th Cir.)
-
Good touch, bad touch – Employers must be sensitive to same-sex harassment
July / August 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 834
Abstract: All claims of sexual harassment — including those involving same-sex employees — need to be taken seriously by employers. That’s the conclusion this article draws. It summarizes a Sixth Circuit case in which an employee alleged that his employer, in violation of Title VII, had failed to take prompt and corrective action when he was sexually harassed by a male co-worker. Smith v. Rock-Tenn Services, Inc., No. 15-5534, Feb. 10, 2016 (6th Cir.)
-
Exempt or nonexempt? Court weighs in on question of the day
July / August 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 993
Abstract: In a case involving the FLSA, the Fourth Circuit court considered whether a registered nurse, who said that she was not an exempt employee, was owed overtime pay by her employer. This article summarizes the case and discusses the concept of “exempt.” It also explains what employers can learn from the case’s outcome. A sidebar discusses a Seventh Circuit case in which an employee asserted that she was paid a salary so that her employer could claim an exemption from overtime. Williams v. Genex Services, LLC, No. MJG-13-1942, September 4, 2014 (4th Cir.) Klein v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, No. 92-1933, March 29, 1993 (7th Cir.)
-
Litigation Rx: Document your termination decisions
May / June 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 840
Abstract: To effectively defend themselves against claims made under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers must follow their stated employment policies and document everything. That’s the conclusion the Seventh Circuit reached in a recent case in which a physician claimed he was terminated because of his disability. This article details the case and explains how the employer eventually prevailed. Hooper v. Proctor Health Care Inc., No. 14-2344, Oct. 26, 2015 (7th Cir.)
-
When the dots don’t connect in a retaliation action
May / June 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 759
Abstract: This article covers an appeals court case where the decision hinged on whether the plaintiff could make a causal connection between his former employer’s actions and certain adverse outcomes. It explains the factors for a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and Section 1981 and why the court denied the plaintiff’s claims. It also warns employers to provide only “neutral” references for former employees. Mitchell v. Mercedes Benz U.S. International, Inc., No. 15-11786, Dec. 17, 2015 (11th Cir.)
-
Age Discrimination in Employment Act – Coupons fail to save employee from termination
May / June 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 665
Abstract: When a 72-year-old salesman was terminated, he sued his employer, claiming the action violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This article looks at the details of the case and how the appeals court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish his claim. The article reminds employers that, when making termination decisions, they must ensure they’re taking similar adverse actions against similarly situated employees.
-
One employer or two? Appeals court determines joint liability in Title VII case
May / June 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 944
Abstract: This article describes a Title VII race discrimination case in which the Third Circuit considered whether a temporary worker assigned by a staffing agency to a retail store was a joint employee. The court applied an employment relationship test laid out by an earlier Supreme Court ruling and found the worker to be employed by both the agency and store. A sidebar summarizes a similar case where the court came to a different conclusion.
-
Disability discrimination – Why employers must document termination decisions
March / April 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 635
Abstract: This article summarizes a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit considered when legitimate reasons to terminate an employee become pretext for discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a reversal of the trial court’s decision, the appeals court found that the employers failed to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.
-
Fitness-for-duty evaluation spurs ADA case
March / April 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 754
Abstract: Does demanding that an employee submit to a fitness-for-duty evaluation violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? An appeals court recently considered this question — and whether the worker had been constructively discharged. It concluded that employers must have a legitimate business necessity before requiring workers to undergo fitness-for-duty or medical exams and that they must act consistently with their claimed necessity.
-
Don’t build a border barring older employees from promotion
March / April 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 667
Abstract: Recently, the Ninth Circuit considered whether a trial court had erred in ruling against an employee who claimed that age discrimination prevented his promotion. As this article explains, the court concluded that it’s not enough for employers to make nondiscriminatory promotion decisions. They also must prevent managers from making comments that create a perception that discrimination is in play.
-
Fair WARNing – Failure to provide layoff notice may land you in court
March / April 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 972
Abstract: The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires employers to notify employees at least 60 days before a mass layoff. This article describes a Sixth Circuit decision about whether a seizure of the employer’s products — which led to layoffs — was unforeseeable, or whether the employer violated the WARN Act. A sidebar summarizes a similar case where the Eighth Circuit made a different ruling.
-
Attorney at law … or not so much?
January / February 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 559
Abstract: One might think that an attorney performing contract work for a law firm is indisputably engaged in the “practice of law.” But, as this article explains, a recent decision by an appellate court addressed this very matter. At stake was whether the plaintiff’s employer had violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
-
Reasonable, not preferred – An employer’s obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
January / February 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 741
Abstract: An employer that provides an accommodation to an employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act may think it’s out of the woods. But employees aren’t always satisfied, even with reasonable accommodations. This article describes a case in which a plaintiff was accommodated with part-time work and paid leave yet still filed a lawsuit because his employer refused to grant him light-duty work.
-
Ignore employee complaints at your own peril
January / February 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 679
Abstract: When one employee constantly complains, an employer may be tempted to take a “boy who cried wolf” approach and ignore those protestations. But doing so can lead the complainer to a lawsuit and the employer to court. This article describes a case in which a frustrated employee eventually filed a claim of retaliatory hostile work environment, after multiple complaints went uninvestigated.
-
The Equal Access to Justice Act – Winning attorneys’ fees when the government goes too far
January / February 2016
Newsletter: Employment Law Briefing
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 951
Abstract: The Equal Access to Justice Act provides for the recovery of attorneys’ fees from the government when it acts in bad faith or pursues a matter that isn’t substantially justified. This article describes a case in which an appeals court considered whether the Department of Labor should pay a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees following a particularly aggressive investigation. A sidebar focuses on how a court may determine whether a frivolous argument has been proffered and pursued.