Retaliation Redux: Two cases that should scare employers a lot
Last week, my post was about retaliation, and how employers can be liable and how they can defend themselves. As luck would have it, two recent court decisions illustrate beyond my wildest imagination how important this issue can be.
Employers, you might (or might not) be liable for retaliation if . . .
Our friend Judy Greenwald from Business Insurance magazine reported this week that the number of EEOC charges filed in fiscal year 2011 (which ended September 30, 2011) was relatively flat, with the exception of one big category . . . retaliation.
Increasing Levels of Workplace Retaliation Reported in National Survey
The 2011 National Business Ethics Survey® was published last week by the Ethics Resource Center. Over the last two decades this biannual report has become a mainstay for tracking trends, assessing data and gathering research on the state of ethics in the American workplace. It has also served as an effective gauge for monitoring hot-button issues in the employment law field. This year's survey continues that trend.
Don't Hate Me Because I'm Brilliant: Part II
You may recall our previous post about a young lawyer who sued his former employer. The lawyer, Gregory Berry, had sent an email to the firm's partners, in which he stated, "it has become clear that I have as much experience and ability as an associate many years my senior, as much skill writing, and a superior legal mind to most I have met." Not surprisingly, Mr. Berry's arrogance was not well received, and he lost his job. He then sued his former employer, seeking over $75 million in damages.
Federal Litigation of Employment Claims - The Importance of Knowing When the Clock Begins to Run
There are a host of means by which employees can voice claims of discrimination, and employers must be prepared to respond to each method appropriately. Further, no matter how proactive an employer is in implementing new procedures and policies, how thorough its investigative process, and how responsive it is to claims, an employer may find itself named as a defendant in a lawsuit. Litigation of employment related claims presents new challenges and involves unique considerations and decisions. For instance, employers defending a lawsuit filed in state court may, under certain circumstances, remove the case to federal court. There can be various tactical reasons for doing so, including different jury pools and judges, different procedures applied to the discovery process, and even the tactic of taking a plaintiff's counsel out of his or her chosen venue (and perhaps comfort zone). However, while all federal district courts apply the same statutory removal provisions - 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 - federal courts interpret and apply these procedures differently. Thus, it is very important for employers - or at least their legal counsel - to understand these differences so as to not make a mistake and be stuck in the court you do not want to be in. A very recent federal court decision hit home this very point.
TREATING “SIMILARLY-SITUATED” EMPLOYEES THE SAME
Most employers know that consistent application of internal policies and job standards can prevent discrimination and retaliation claims. This is particularly important because plaintiffs seeking to make such claims must establish that the employer treated “similarly-situated” persons outside their protected group more favorably.
Employment law cornucopia - happy Thanksgiving!
A cornucopia of random employment law issues for your long weekend.
The Employment Law Authority (October 2011)
NLRB Imposes New Posting Requirement
Recent Developments From The OFCCP - Federal Contractors Beware
Agencies Sign Misclassification Memorandum
NLRB Hands Down Union-Friendly Decisions
Court Rejects Claim Of Insufficient Notice In ERISA Suit
New Enforcement Procedures For Investigating Workplace Violence
New Supreme Court Term Promises a Range of Labor and Employment Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court opened its 2011-2012 term this Monday. Although the Court may not issue as many landmark labor and employment decisions as it did last term—such as Dukes v. Wal-Mart—it is likely to hear a full complement of cases with significant implications for employers. The Court has already selected several labor and employment cases that it will hear this term, including the following:
Employers Can Discriminate!
For some employees who can't figure out why they are not getting that promotion, the answer could be as simple as looking in the mirror. Grooming and personal appearance are playing an ever-increasing role in workplace raise and promotion decisions. A recent CareerBuilder.com survey listed the following as the top reasons that would make an employer less likely to offer an employee a promotion:
