The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) establishes protected leave for specific circumstances, including the birth or placement of a son or daughter, care of a newborn or newly placed son or daughter, and care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition. On June 22, 2010, the Wage and Hour Division of
Supreme Court rules that review of public employee’s text messages was not a Constitutional violation.
[With thanks to Hera Arsen, J.D., Ph.D., in our Client Services group – her more detailed explanation of this case can be found on the firm’s website at www.ogletreedeakins.com.]
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a city police department’s search of an employee/police officer’s text messages was reasonable, and did not violate the
Third Circuit sets forth the criteria to support the imposition of an injunction related to a non-compete agreement.
Non-competition, confidentiality, and non-solicitation agreements all are examples of restrictive covenants that are used to preclude an employee from taking certain proprietary information or customers and using it (or them) in a way that may adversely affect the individual’s previous employer. When a company determines that a former employee may be prepared to violate such
Physician’s constructive discharge claim required only that a protected characteristic played a “motivating part” in hospital-employer’s conduct.
It is generally understood that employees can bring claims for hostile environment, wrongful termination, or even “constructive discharge” – where an employee claims that an employer made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. What is less clearly understood is the extent of the economic damages for which a
Insubordinate employee does not meet employer’s legitimate expectations.
Unless an individual can prove that she is meeting the expectations of her employer, that individual cannot set forth the prima facie case necessary to support a claim of workplace discrimination. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found that an employee who was fired for insubordination was not meeting an employer’s legitimate business
Punitive damages of $250 Million awarded to current and former employees in gender discrimination lawsuit.
In a case in which over $3 Million in compensatory damages already had been awarded to a group of 12 female former employees claiming gender discrimination, the same jury awarded $250 Million in punitive damages to a class of 5600 female employees and former employees of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation for the same claims. Velez v.
Inability to get along with co-workers can be sufficient basis for adverse employment action.
Employers often are hesitant to discipline or fire an employee who is in a protected class, knowing that the potential for lawsuit can be higher in those circumstances. This issue was addressed directly by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion in which an employee failed to prove that the company’s
Company pays judgment for sexual harassment of teenaged employees.
The EEOC announced on May 5, 2010 that Ohio-based Everdry Marketing and Management, Inc., has paid over $500,000 in damages in interest to satisfy a judgment against that company stemming from a 2006 jury trial. The original claims were filed by 13 women, mostly teenagers at the time of the incidents, who worked at the
Inconsistent administration of physical ability test can create a triable question of intentional discrimination.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s summary judgment in favor of an employer who required a female employee to take a physical ability test after an on-the-job injury, even though it did not require such a test for similarly situated male employees. Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc.
Third Circuit says accommodation may include shift change that assists with commute to work.
In an unusual case of first impression, the 3d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that under certain circumstances, the ADA may obligate an employer to accommodate an employee’s disability-related difficulties in getting to work. In that case, the Court reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer and held that changing a part-time