|
[05/09] Texas may claim Amazon owes sales taxes [05/09] Circuit City allows Blockbuster, Icahn to review books [05/09] Icahn prepared to buy Circuit City if Blockbuster can't [05/09] Cosmetics firm Lancome and Uma Thurman in contract dispute [05/08] New rule would limit insurers contact with elderly, disabled
More...
Articles
Asserting Your Rights in the Workplace
Depending on the size of your employer, the state in which you live, and your profession, you may be entitled to certain legal protections in the workplace, including:
More...
Testing Job Applicants
Many employers like to use pre-employment tests as a way to screen out applicants who are not suitable for the job. These tests include skills tests, aptitude tests, psychological tests, personality tests, honesty tests, medical tests, and drug tests.
More...
What laws protect disabled workers from workplace discrimination?
The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of workers' disabilities. Generally, the ADA prohibits employers from:
More...
Are there laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation??
Fifteen states prohibit private employers from making employment decisions based on sexual orientation, as do many county and municipal governments. However, no federal law prohibits sexual orientation discrimination in private employment.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[05/09] Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board Mall's petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, which held that it was a violation of a party's free speech rights under the California Constitution to require a permit applicant to agree not to urge consumers to boycott any of the mall's tenants as a condition to obtaining a permit to engage in expressive activities at the mall, is denied where petitioner failed to raise its constitutional arguments before the circuit court in prior proceedings, and waited until it petitioned the California Supreme Court for a rehearing.
[05/09] McCann v. Tillman In a Title VII suit against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the record demonstrated that employee's claims of favorable disparate treatment of similarly situated white employees were inapposite to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; 2) employee failed to meet the burden of showing that the reasons for her employer's actions were actually a pretext for retaliatory conduct; and 3) despite employee's allegations of exposure to offensive derogatory language at work, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment.
[05/08] U.S. v. Harper In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.
[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.
More...
|