|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
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 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 Dukes v. Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart Loses Initial 9th Circuit Battle, but Who Will Win the Class Certification War?Littler Mendelson, P.C. - February 12, 2007 On February 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court's 2004 decision certifying a nationwide class of approximately 1.6 million current and former female employees alleging sex discrimination. Report Link Strategic Initiatives for Countering the Class Action Epidemic (pdf).Littler Mendelson, P.C. - May 19, 2006 The focus of this Report is the rising epidemic of employment law class actions and the challenge they reflect and create for the employer community. In responding to these claims both a procedural and a substantive solution is outlined in the form of two 2006 initiatives reflecting very different and challenging perspectives. First this report explore the growing case law support for properly written arbitration agreements to exclude class claims. Second, is an overview of how to establish a system of compliance metrics designed to stem the rising tide of employment law class actions illustrated through mandatory training requirements both under employment and corporate governance statutes and regulations. Report Link ERISA Class Actions -- The Next Big Wave?Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - April 17, 2006 In December 2005, a federal court in Chicago certified a class of approximately 14,000 employees in a “big picture” ERISA challenge to a corporate restructuring decision that affected their benefit eligibility. Report Link Employers May Fight Back Through The Class Action Fairness Act.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 17, 2005 Employers throughout the United States may soon begin to fight back in federal court against forum-shopping plaintiff lawyers through the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Report Link Class Action Update: New Class Action Fairness Act (pdf).Vedder Price - April 29, 2005 As part of his reelection campaign, President George W.
Bush promised significant class action reform. The Class
Action Fairness Act, which he signed into law on
February 18, 2005, is a step in that direction. The Act
aims to reduce frivolous lawsuits against businesses by
allowing the removal of large class claims from state
courts to federal courts. Report Link New Class Action Law May Dampen Hopes of Plaintiffs in Discrimination and Wage Hour Litigation.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 25, 2005 Although the new Class Action Fairness Act is aimed primarily at products liability and other types of tort claims involving injuries to persons or property on a large scale, the Act will have a significant impact on class and collective actions arising from workplace disputes. Report Link Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: New Bill Allows Some New Class Action Cases to Be Removed from State to Federal Court.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - February 24, 2005 On Friday, February 18, 2005, President Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“the Act”) into law. Amazingly, the Act, which its supporters say will curb the ability of plaintiffs' attorneys to abuse the class action procedure, was introduced, debated and passed by both houses of the Legislature in a mere three-week period. According to the President, the Class Action Fairness Act “will help ensure justice by making two essential reforms.
|
ArticlesFound: 12 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