Showing 115 posts from 2012.

D.C. Circuit Upholds Large Jury Verdict in Favor of Male Sexual Harassment Victim

June 25, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A prominent female lobbyist employed her former personal trainer, a Serbian immigrant, at her lobbying firm and agreed to sponsor his H-1B visa so that he could stay in the United States. Over the course of his three-year employment with the firm, the employee claimed that he was consistently harassed with sexual propositions and innuendo by his female supervisor. More ›

Illinois Court: Participation in Employer’s own Discrimination Investigation After EEOC Complaint is Protected Activity Under Title VII

June 22, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

It is generally a rule that an employer may discipline its employee for his behavior during an internal investigation of alleged discrimination. A federal district court in Northern Illinois recently joined the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, however, in recognizing an exception to that rule: where the investigation occurs after a complaint has been filed, employees who participate are protected from discipline by Title VII. More ›

Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Finds Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Exempt as Outside Salespersons Under FLSA

June 19, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Christopher et al. v. SmithKline Beecham, finding that SmithKline properly classified its pharmaceutical sales representatives as "outside salespersons" and thus exempt under the wage and hour requirements set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act.  More ›

Wal-Mart Follows Properly-Drafted Accommodation Policy, Still ends up Potentially Liable for Retaliation

June 15, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Seventh Circuit issued a decision earlier this week which reminds employers that following a properly-drafted policy does not necessarily guarantee freedom from legal complications in all cases. More ›

Eighth Circuit: Business – Judgment Jury Instruction Is Inappropriate For Claim Under Equal Pay Act

June 7, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Eighth Circuit has issued a decision which serves as a clear reminder to employees that the federal Equal Pay Act is a strict liability statute. Basically, this means that an employer may not be able to avoid liability by simply articulating a non-discriminatory reason for its actions, as it could in a Title VII discrimination claim. Rather, when a female employee shows that she was paid less than a male employee for the same work, the employer can avoid liability under the Act only by affirmatively proving that it had a justification for the disparity in pay.  More ›

California Court Compels Arbitration and Dismissal of Class Claims, Invalidating Gentry Based on AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion

June 4, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

For many years, pursuant to Gentry v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, California courts have held that class waiver provisions in arbitration agreements should not be enforced if class arbitration would be a significantly more effective way of redressing the rights of affected employees. But that was before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its April 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, holding that the principal purpose of the Federal Arbitration Act is to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced pursuant to their terms. Further, the Supreme Court held that “requiring the availability of classwide arbitration interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration and thus creates a scheme consistent with the FAA.” More ›

New Report Issued on Employee use of Social Media and the National Labor Relations Act

June 1, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On May 30, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel issued a Report Concerning Social Media Cases. In it, the General Counsel’s Office reviewed seven cases concerning employers’ social media policies regarding. In its review, the General Counsel found several aspects of these policies to be overbroad while affirming others. More ›

Seventh Circuit: Section 1981 Allows Individual Liability in “Cat’s Paw” Claim

May 31, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has determined that employees may be held individually liable under Section 1981 if their discriminatory actions led their employer to terminate another employee. This was a case of first impression involving the so-called “cat’s paw” theory of liability, so-named for a fable involving a monkey that persuades a cat to pull roasting walnuts from a fireplace, only to burn his paw and get no walnuts himself. “Why should the ‘hapless cat’ (or at least his employer) get burned,” the panel asked, “but not the malicious ‘monkey?’” More ›

Seventh Circuit Explains the Burden of Proof Applied to Retaliation Claims

May 29, 2012 by Ambrose V. McCall

In Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, the plaintiff police officer sued the Mayor of Danville, Illinois, along with the Director of Public Safety and two Deputy Directors. The officer pursued his First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, and alleged that the defendants responded unlawfully by disciplining him and subjecting him to termination charges because of his public criticisms of various departmental officials at police officer union meetings. The case narrative contains many vivid facts, including the claims by a parolee informant of the officer that he had an explosive, which proved to be a piece of firework, and the officer transporting the same informant across state lines. More ›

Second Circuit Rules on Issues of First Impression Regarding Title VII Protected Activities and the Application of Affirmative Defenses

May 25, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In its May 9, 2011 decision in Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc. the Second Circuit ruled upon two issues of first impression concerning Title VII sexual harassment and retaliation claims. First, it joined the Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that an employee’s participation in an internal employer investigation is not a protected activity under Title VII. Second, it confirmed that the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense generally available to employers in sexual harassment cases does not apply when the harassment is committed by a senior executive who is a proxy or alter ego for the employer. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives