Employers Win As Supreme Court Says No To Wal-Mart Class Action
The Supreme Court has issued its decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case and it is a victory for employers. Justice Scalia authored the Court’s opinion reversing the Ninth Circuit decision that the plaintiffs met the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).
EEOC's ADAAA Regulations More Bad News For Employers
It has been a rough year for employers so far after several adverse decisions from the Supreme Court. Not wanting to be left out, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final rule implementing regulations under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) on March 25, 2011. The new regulations go into effect on May 24, 2011. There has been a lot of discussion online about the meaning of the regulations but they are not surprising and are for the most part consistent with the ADAAA itself. The essence is that employers can forget about challenging a plaintiff’s claim that he or she is disabled in all but the most extreme cases. As just about everyone previously concluded when the ADAAA became law, disability discrimination cases now turn on the reason for adverse employment action, the interactive process and/or the reasonableness of accommodations. If you are interested in details, some specifics points from the regulations follow.
Supreme Court Rules Oral Complaints Covered By FLSA Retaliation Provision
Today, March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. case. The sole issued addressed by the Court was “whether ‘an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’ is ‘protected under [the Act’s] anti-retaliation provision.’” Given the recent spate of pro-employee decisions, it is hardly surprising that the Court answered the question in the affirmative. The court began its analysis by noting that the FLSA protects employees who have “filed any complaint.” The decision by Justice Breyer focuses on the meaning of those three words – filed any complaint. While he concludes that the words in isolation are open to competing interpretations, consideration of the language in view of its purpose and context permits only one interpretation. I will spare you the lengthy – some might say tortuous reasoning – and go straight to the holding:
Cat's Paw Liability Arguably Not An Option In ADA Cases In The 6th and 10th Circuits
In my last post, I discussed the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., which upheld the current Sixth Circuit standard that a plaintiff must show that his or her disability was the “sole reason” for the adverse employment action; sometimes referred to as the “solely” standard. Of the ten circuits to consider the issue, eight apply a “motivating factor” (or “substantial cause”) test, under which a plaintiff must only show that a disability was a motivating factor of the adverse employment action.
New Decision Affirms Anomaly In Sixth Circuit ADA Law
The Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. on March 17, 2011 that is based on an interesting anomaly in the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of ADA claims. Ms. Lewis was a registered nurse who began working at the Humboldt Manor Nursing Home in July 2004. Sometime in September 2005, she developed a medical condition that “among other things, affected her lower extremities.” As a result of the condition, Ms. Lewis sometimes used a wheelchair. Humboldt Manor terminated Ms. Lewis’ employment in March 2006 because of an “outburst” that she had at the nurses station. Three co-workers testified that she yelled, criticized supervisors and used profanity. Ms. Lewis and another employee testified that she was upset but did not act inappropriately. Ms. Lewis alleged that the true reason for her termination was her use of a wheelchair and that Humboldt Manor exaggerated the severity of her behavior to use it as a pretext for disability discrimination.
Two New Supreme Court Decisions Likely to Create Additional Employment Litigation
The first significant Supreme Court pronouncements on employment law are here and both seem tailored to create further litigation. The first, decided late last week, is NASA v. Nelson, unanimously reversing a 9th Circuit decision that government employment background check questionnaires violated the constitutional right to “information privacy.”
Brett Favre - The Final Chapter?
You may recall my post from a couple months ago about Brett Favre’s alleged harassment of a New York Jets employee, Jenn Sterger. The NFL has completed its investigation and has been unable to substantiate any allegations that Favre violated league policies. However, the commissioner did conclude that Favre failed to cooperate with the investigation and was less than candid so he fined him $50,000, which is pocket change to Favre. I was not going to bother commenting on this sorry spectacle until I happened to hear ESPN’s “legal analyst” on Sportscenter this morning. The analyst, who shall remain nameless, expressed the following opinions: 1) Sterger could sue Favre and the Jets, although there might be some statute of limitations issues; 2) Favre could be considered her supervisor because he was higher up the chain in the Jets organization than Sterger; and 3) if Sterger were to file suit, her case would likely get to a jury. The only question I had after hearing this was how can I get an analyst job at ESPN because I can do better than this.
What Is Labor Day?
As we head into the long weekend, I suspect that very few people contemplate the meaning of Labor Day.
The (Possible) Future of Arbitration
In my last post, I discussed the pros and cons of arbitration of employment disputes, concluding that the pros outweigh the cons. I also noted that the Arbitration Fairness Act, which would ban forced arbitration in employment disputes, is looming on the horizon. I ended with the question: What should you do if the Arbitration Fairness Act passes? As promised, here are a few suggestions.
Arbitration Pros and Cons
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a huge proponent of arbitration of employment disputes as beneficial to employers. Frankly, I do not understand why more employers do not use arbitration. After some internet research on the topic, I have identified the following commonly stated pros and cons of arbitration.
Topics
- Labor Law
- ADAAA
- Environmental Law
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Sexual Harassment
- National Labor Relations Act
- Employment Law
- Privacy
- Taxation
- Non-compete/Non-solicit
- FMLA
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Healthcare Reform
- Benefits
- Social Media
- Technology
- Guns
- Workplace Violence
- Unions
- Antitrust
- Arbitration
- Wage & Hour
- Litigation
- Collective Action
- Harassment
- L&E Movie Reviews
Contributors
Subscribe to RSS
Recent Posts
- Fair Employment Opportunity Act and New NLRA Posting Rule
- EEOC Ordered to Pay Millions in Attorneys’ Fees Again
- Work-Life Balance Not Required By Law and Other Interesting Reading
- Employers Win As Supreme Court Says No To Wal-Mart Class Action
- Have You Read Your Job Postings?
- Ohio Judge Thwarts EEOC Effort To Expand Pattern and Practice Lawsuits
- NLRB Files Two More Facebook Cases
- Reimbursing Employees for Travel During the Workday
- Following Up on Past Blog Posts: Cat's Paw, Twitter and Bedbugs
- Why Does the EEOC Need To Solicit Claimants with Radio Announcements?