|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Article Index » class actions: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Rising Class and Collective Lawsuits in EmploymentKrukowski & Costello, S.C. - August 31, 2009 Thomas P. Krukowski analyzes the rise of class and collective lawsuits in employment-related litigation as employees seek proper pay and fair treatment while employers seek to defend their policies and practices. Mr. Krukowski discusses the differences between the two types of group litigation, reasons for the increase, and why the trend is expected to continue. Numerous other issues are reviewed, including the historic Dukes v. Wal-Mart litigation. He also sets forth general recommendations for employers, including the careful auditing and monitoring of employment policies, practices and decisions to ensure that employees are treated fairly, consistently, and in accordance with developing legal standards, as well as developing an understanding of how statistical analyses are used and applied in these types of claims. Report Link Wage and Hour Class Actions in the Healthcare Industry: Diagnosis and Prevention.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - August 18, 2009 Wage and hour class and collective actions targeting hospitals and other healthcare employers have proliferated in recent months. Plaintiff-side firms have launched national assaults against healthcare employers, including websites with lists of healthcare employers who are being sued or are "under investigation," and mass emails to employees of healthcare employers who are targeted. Attached is a brief excerpt from a Littler Report that canvasses recent developments, explores the nature and risks of class and collective actions, the types of claims being made and suggests practical solutions to defend against and avoid such claims in the future. Report Link New Special Report Available on Damages in Systemic Discrimination Class Actions.Jackson Lewis LLP - June 04, 2009 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, class-wide punitive damages can be determined by a jury in Title VII pattern or practice cases and back pay determinations may be made without individualized hearings when appropriate. If the courts agree with the EEOC, many employers could lose their ability to defend individual employment decisions in large class actions with evidence of wrongdoing turning on company-wide statistics. Report Link STARBUCKS NARROWLY ESCAPES CLASS ACTION OVER EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION FOIBLE (pdf).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - February 09, 2009 Almost every employer uses some form of written
job application. However, many employers are
unaware of legal requirements governing what
types of questions a job seeker may be asked.
Employers who do not follow these rules face stiff
penalties and expensive compliance lawsuits. Report Link Starbucks Ruling is No "Pot of Gold" for Class Action Plaintiffs.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - December 26, 2008 In Starbucks v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of California considered whether the plaintiffs were entitled to ask a jury to award millions of dollars against Starbucks for allegedly requiring job applicants to disclose prior convictions for misdemeanor marijuana-related offenses. At the trial court level, the judge had granted the named-plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action for the benefit of approximately 135,000 class members (unsuccessful job applicants). The trial court judge had also rejected Starbucks bid for "summary judgment," i.e., to have the named-plaintiffs' lawsuit thrown out of court without a trial. Report Link The Next Wave - Systemic Discrimination Class Actions.Ogletree Deakins - July 01, 2008 The apparent next wave of employment discrimination class actions appears to be cases focusing on so-called systemic discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) have undertaken recent initiatives to this effect. And prominent plaintiffs’ attorneys have said these cases are the future of employment class actions. Report Link Class Claims of Pay Discrimination After Ledbetter.Ogletree Deakins - July 01, 2008 The Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision invalidates traditional class claims of pay discrimination and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' (OFCCP) pay discrimination standards. Report Link Supreme Court Rules the "Class-of-One" Theory Does Not Apply in Public Employment Lawsuits.Baker Hostetler LLP - June 17, 2008 In an important case for public employers, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agriculture, et al. on June 9, 2008, and held that a class-of-one theory under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply in the public employment context. When public employees sue in federal court for illegal discrimination as a group, the lawsuit is considered "class-based." In recent years, however, some federal courts have allowed an individual public employee to sue a state, city or public board on a class-of-one theory by alleging that he or she was singled out for discrimination by a vindictive supervisor. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist limits a terminated employee's ability to file an equal protection claim by foreclosing the class-of-one theory in an employment discrimination lawsuit. Report Link Immigrant Workers' Fear of Retaliation Cited for Federal Court's Approving State Law Class Action.Jackson Lewis LLP - March 25, 2008 Seeking to protect a group of immigrant workers from retaliation related to participation in a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that they affirmatively “opt in” to the suit, a United States District Court in New York has certified a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in which objecting class members have to “opt out” of the suit, to allow the immigrants to pursue state law claims for unpaid overtime under New York’s Labor Law. Report Link Class Action Certified In Sex Bias Suit Against Wal-Mart (scroll down).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - October 01, 2007 In Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., the Ninth Circuit issued a revised opinion that once again affirmed a district court order granting class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Wal-Mart discriminated against female employees in both pay and promotional opportunities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The proposed class consists of women employed by Wal-Mart in positions ranging from part-time, entry-level hourly employees to salaried managers. The class is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, backpay, and punitive damages, but not compensatory damages. The district court certified the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 23.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 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