|
[07/30] Oil falls to near $78 as global stocks drop
[07/30] Fortune Brands 2Q profit more than doubles
[07/30] Renault returns to profit in first half
[07/30] Oil falls below $78 as global stocks drop
[07/30] House passes bill to boost commuter airline safety
More...
Articles
Employment Discrimination Laws Overview
Since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, the federal government has enacted many laws that bar employers from discriminating against employees based on many protected characteristics.
More...
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action is the legal term for any program that grants preferences in training, hiring, or promotion to women or minority group members. There are two situations in which an employer is required to adopt affirmative action measures: when it has been ordered to do so as part of the resolution of a discrimination lawsuit against it, or when it has entered into a contract with a state or federal government entity, and is required to use an affirmative action program according to the contract.
More...
Understanding Employment Contract Provisions
Employment contracts take many different forms. All employees at a company may be asked to sign the same form contract, or each employee may have a contract with the employer that is applicable just to his or her employment agreement. An employer and an employee may simply have an oral agreement regarding the kind of work the employee will do, for how long, and at what rate of pay. Sometimes there is no written or oral agreement but the behavior of the employer and the employee can be viewed as an implied employment contract.
More...
What are Some of the Main Federal Employment Laws?
Employers are subject to regulations and laws not only at the state and local level, but at the federal level as well. Employers normally need to have a certain number of employees in order to be subjected to federal employment laws. The list below is not meant to be exhaustive. Employers should consult experienced employment law attorneys to ensure they are in compliance with all applicable laws.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/25] Kemp v. Holder
In an action for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act arising from the termination of plaintiff's employment as a federal court security officer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he had a "disability," as that term is defined under the ADA.
[06/25] Malone v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
In plaintiff's suit for employment discrimination based on race and retaliation, district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed where, for substantially the same reasons as the court indicated below, the record reveals no significant evidentiary basis for the verdict.
[06/25] Murthy v. Vilsack
In an action by an ex-employee against the Secretary of Agriculture for breach of the terms of a settlement agreement and for non-selection to a GS-15 position in violation of Title VII, an order partially transferring the action and partially granting summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the filing of an amended complaint after the 180-day waiting period expired could not cure the failure to exhaust; and 2) res judicata would not bar the filing of a new Title VII non-selection civil action after he exhausted his EEOC remedies.
[06/25] Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr.
In plaintiff's Title VII suit against her former employer for being fired in retaliation for her complaints about sexual harassment by residents of defendant's nursing home, district court's denial of defendant's motions for a new trial and remittitur are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff presented enough evidence to persuade a reasonable jury that her complaints caused defendant to fire her; 2) it was not an abuse of discretion to deny the motion for a new trial on the basis of plaintiff's counsel's closing arguments; 3) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the compensatory damages as enough evidence supported a jury award of $25,000, which is well within the $200,000 cap set out in 42 U.S.C. section 1981a(b)(3)(C); and 4) it was not an abuse of discretion in denying remittitur on the punitive damage award and the logic of Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008) does not apply to this Title VII case.
[06/25] Ruiz v. Cty. of Rockland
In an action against a county for national origin and race discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff was not qualified for his position based on evidence of plaintiff's misconduct; but 2) plaintiff failed to raise an inference of discrimination.
More...
|