|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Report Link Congress Introduces Legislation to Overturn Supreme Court Age Discrimination Decision.Jackson Lewis LLP - October 15, 2009 Lawmakers in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have introduced legislation to overturn a Supreme Court decision that has been criticized by politicians and advocacy groups as making it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail on age discrimination claims. Report Link Federal ADEA Update: Company Liable For Discriminatory Hiring Practices Of Third Party Recuiter.Barker Olmsted & Barnier - October 05, 2009 If a company retains an outside recruiter to interview and hire employees on its behalf, can the company be held liable if the recruiter engages in discriminatory practices? Report Link Federal Appeals Court Holds Employer May be Liable for Age Discrimination by Contractor.Jackson Lewis LLP - September 24, 2009 Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, employers may be held liable for discriminatory employment decisions made by their independent contractors, the federal appeals court in New York has held. Halpert v. Manhattan Apartments, Inc., No. 07-4074-cv (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2009). The employer’s liability would turn on whether the contractor was acting as the employer’s agent, with direct or apparent authority, the Court said. Since the facts are disputed in this case, the Court vacated summary judgment for the defendant-employer and remanded the case to the district court. Report Link Employer May Be Liable for Hiring Done by Independent Contractor.Ogletree Deakins - September 18, 2009 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual over the age of 40, and specifically includes a prohibition against failing to hiring someone based on his or her age. The 2d U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out the expansive nature of that prohibition by holding that an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties - including an independent contractor who is authorized by the employer to make hiring decisions on its behalf. Report Link Collective-Bargaining Agreement May Require Employees to Arbitrate Age Discrimination Claims, Supreme Court Rules.Baker Hostetler LLP - April 16, 2009 On April 1, 2009, in the 5-4 decision 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, the United States Supreme Court held that a provision in a collective-bargaining agreement requiring union members to arbitrate age discrimination claims is enforceable. The plaintiffs, former unionized watchpersons at a New York City office building, filed a lawsuit against their employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) alleging that they were reassigned to less desirable positions based on their age. The employer tried to block the ADEA claims based on the collective-bargaining agreement with the employees’ union which expressly stated that ADEA claims were subject to binding arbitration. The district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration, relying on the 1974 Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. decision in which the Supreme Court held that an arbitration clause in a collective-bargaining agreement did not preclude an employee’s right to sue his employer for race discrimination under Title VII because the agreement did not expressly cover statutory claims. Report Link The Supreme Court Opens the Door to Mandatory Arbitration of Discrimination Claims for Union Members.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - April 06, 2009 On April 1, 2009, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ability of an employer and a labor organization, as the employees' exclusive representative for purposes of collective bargaining, to agree that employees can be required to arbitrate their statutory employment discrimination or retaliation claims in accordance with an express requirement to do so under the terms of a bargained-for collective agreement. Report Link Supreme Court Rules Collective Bargaining Agreement Can Require Employees to Arbitrate Claims Arising Under the ADEA.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - April 06, 2009 In 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Steven Pyett et al, 2009 WL 838159 (2009), the Supreme Court ruled five to four that a collective bargaining agreement that "clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate an ADEA claim is enforceable as a matter of federal law." This result was sought by the employer and fought by the unions involved in the case. Commentators have already stated that the decision is "welcome news" for employers. Before deciding how "welcome" the decision is for employers, however, many issues have to be considered. Report Link High Court Rules in Several Key Cases Affecting Employers.Ogletree Deakins - June 25, 2008 Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a number of important rulings. Two of these cases arise in the labor and employment law arena and are discussed below. Report Link Supreme Court Rules Kentucky Disability Retirement Plan Does Not Violate ADEA.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 23, 2008 In one of two age discrimination decisions handed down the same day, the Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that using age as a potential factor in determining disability retirement benefits does not automatically constitute disparate treatment age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Report Link Supreme Court Finds that Federal Employees Can Bring Age-Based Retaliation Claims.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 04, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, in a 6-3 decision, that the federal provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits retaliation, even though the language of the statute does not specifically address retaliation. See Gomez-Perez v. Potter (U.S. May 28, 2008). The federal-sector provision of the ADEA provides that “[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” The key question for the Court in this case was whether the statutory phrase “discrimination based on age” includes retaliation based on the filing of an age discrimination complaint. The Court held that it does. Report Link U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Retaliation Is a Form of Discrimination.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - June 04, 2008 The United States Supreme Court recently issued opinions in Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321 (May 27, 2008) and CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431 (May 27, 2008), holding that the antidiscrimination provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and 42 U.S.C. section 1981 also prohibit retaliation. These opinions signal the Court's intention to read protection against retaliation into similar "remedial provisions aimed at prohibiting discrimination." Report Link Supreme Court Holds that, in Certain Circumstances, Preliminary Filings with the EEOC Can Constitute a Charge of Discrimination.Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC - March 06, 2008 On February 27, 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the Equal Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) position that, in addition to the form titled "Charge of Discrimination," certain preliminary filings with the agency also can be considered a "charge" of discrimination for purposes of timelines under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (February 27, 2008), the employee filed an intake questionnaire with the EEOC and attached a detailed affidavit supporting her contention that the employer discriminated against older couriers in violation of the ADEA. When the employee and others filed suit against the employer, the employer moved to dismiss on the ground that the employee had not filed a charge of discrimination at least 60 days before filing suit, as required by the ADEA. Report Link A Charge, by Any Other Name, Is Still a Charge: High Court Adopts Broad Definition in Age Cases.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - March 06, 2008 In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), the Court ruled that the completion of an EEOC Intake Questionnaire with a supporting affidavit satisfied the mandatory charge prerequisite under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). One of the plaintiffs in the case filed a formal Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but only after she sued the former employer, FedEx, for age discrimination in federal court. The ADEA requires that a charge be filed with the EEOC before a lawsuit can be filed against the employer, and it specifically imposes a 60-day waiting period after the charge is filed before litigation can be commenced. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and yhe Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit allowing the suit against FedEx to proceed based on its conclusion that the plaintiff's Intake Questionnaire and affidavit satisfied the statutory charge requirement. Report Link Supreme Court Endorses EEOC Definition of "Charge" under ADEA (pdf).Vedder Price - March 05, 2008 In its second pro-employee decision in two days, the Supreme Court held that a charging party need not fi le
a formal charge with the EEOC to satisfy the administrative charge-fi ling requirement. All that is required is
that the person fi le documents with the EEOC that can be “reasonably construed as a request for the agency
to take remedial action to protect the employee’s rights.”
In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008), four couriers brought a lawsuit
claiming age discrimination in connection with new performance programs rolled out by the company. Only
one of the claimants fi led any papers with the EEOC before fi ling suit. That claimant had submitted an Intake
Questionnaire accompanied by a sworn affi davit that asked the EEOC to “please force Federal Express to end
their age discrimination.” The company did not receive notice of the claim before suit was fi led. The district
court dismissed the lawsuit but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affi rmed
the court of appeals. Report Link Supreme Court Defers to EEOC in Pleading Case.Ogletree Deakins - March 04, 2008 For the second consecutive day, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important employment law decision. Today, in a 7-2 ruling, the high court held that submitting an "intake questionnaire" and a detailed affidavit to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is equivalent to filing a charge for purposes of the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). According to the majority: "The agency's determination that respondent's December 2001 filing was a charge is a reasonable exercise of its authority to apply its own regulations and procedures in the course of the routine administration of the statute it enforces." Report Link Formal Charge of Discrimination Not Required Where Filing Requests EEOC Action Says Supreme Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 28, 2008 The U.S. Supreme Court has held by a 7-2 vote that a formal "charge" of discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not essential to satisfy regulatory requirements under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") where a filing generally alleges discriminatory acts and can be construed as a request for the agency to act. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322 (Feb. 27, 2008). An Intake Questionnaire, in conjunction with a six-page affidavit, filed by the respondent with the EEOC in 2001 met the test, the Court said. Report Link President Signs Law Permitting Pilots to Fly Until Age 65.Ford & Harrison LLP - December 17, 2007 Yesterday (December 13, 2007), the President signed legislation raising the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 60 to 65. The new law, 49 U.S.C. § 44729, permits pilots of Part 121 aircraft to work until age 65; however, a 60-year-old pilot may only be pilot-in-command of a flight between the United States and another country if there is another pilot in the flight deck crew who is younger than 60. The law provides that the limitation for overseas flights will cease when it is eliminated from the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Report Link The Maturing Workforce and Federal Age Protections. Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. - June 24, 2004 The aging population and lower birth rate will continue to require serious discussion regarding health care coverage, retirement benefits, and long-term care for the elderly and disabled, as well as how on earth to pay for what will be required.
|
ArticlesFound: 18 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds