Showing 115 posts from 2012.

Massachusetts Court: Employee had no Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Employer-Provided Gmail Account

May 25, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

At the developing intersection of employment law and the internet, every decision is important. It is, therefore, worth taking note of a recent decision out of Massachusetts state court, wherein the court found that an employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in e-mails sent and received using a Gmail account provided and administered by his employer.  More ›

Illegal Alien Status not a Protected Class Under Title VII

May 23, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an employer bank did not unlawfully discriminate against a female employee based on her husband’s immigration status. More ›

Police Chief Not Protected by Qualified Immunity for Employee’s Free-Speech Retaliation Claim

May 22, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A police department employee offered testimony in connection with a lawsuit which was filed by a co-worker against their employer. Thereafter, the Assistant Chief of Police terminated the employee. She sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that her constitutional right to free speech was violated when she was terminated in retaliation for providing testimony about alleged government misconduct. The Assistant Chief of Police sought to defend against that claim on the grounds of qualified immunity. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied his request for qualified immunity on the grounds that a supervisor cannot retaliate against a public employee for her subpoenaed deposition testimony when offered as a citizen in the context of a civil rights lawsuit. He then appealed. More ›

Physician Partner may sue Physician’s Partnership for Retaliation Under FEHA

May 22, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Court of Appeal recently determined that a physician partner could sue her partnership under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) for retaliation based upon that partner’s opposition to, and efforts to prevent, the sexual harassment of the partnership’s non-partner employees. The Court acknowledged that a partner cannot sue the partnership under the FEHA for alleged harassment or discrimination against the partner, or for retaliation for opposing harassment or discrimination against the partner. The Court further confirmed that a partner cannot sue her partnership for harassment, discrimination or retaliation under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, however, the Court recognized that a partner is a "person" protected from retaliation under the FEHA for opposing alleged sexual harassment of the partnership's employees, because the anti-retaliation provision shields "any person" who opposes employment discrimination, even if there is no existing employment relationship with defendant. The Court noted that the circumstances before it were "unique" thus implying that such a retaliation claim will not be raised often. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal's decision reflects a broadening of the FEHA prohibition against retaliation claims, which previously seemed to only apply to a relationship between employer and employee.

Federal Judge Strikes Down NLRB “Speedy Election” Rule on Technicality

May 16, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A federal district court in Washington D.C. has struck down the recently enacted National Labor Relations Board rule that expedited union representation elections. The rule, which had been in effect since April 30, sped up union elections from an average of 38 days after a petition is filed to as few as 10 days. In a May 14 decision in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. National Labor Relations Board, however, District Court Judge James Boasberg found that the Board was acting without a quorum when two of its members enacted the rule in December 2011. As a result, Judge Boasberg determined, the so-called "speedy election" rule is invalid. More ›

Florida Court Relies upon GPS Information to deny Employee’s Workers’ Compensation Claim

May 11, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The District Court of Appeal of Florida recently addressed an issue which will undoubtedly be of interest to employers nationwide. In Roloff v. Lock Busters of Southwest Florida, the locksmith employee was required to be on call “waiting to be engaged” during his shift. The company vans contained GPS devices which provided for the location of the vehicle. More ›

Citing Employee’s Receipt of SSDI Benefits, the Fourth Circuit Rejects the EEOC’s ADA Action Against Medical Center

April 30, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On April 17, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered the circumstances under which an employee’s ADA claim and receipt of SSDI benefits can co-exist. More ›

Employee Permitted to Combine two Separate Health Issues into one “Serious Medical Condition” Under FMLA

April 26, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A federal district court in Minnesota has ruled that multiple medical conditions can be combined into a single "serious medical condition" for purposes of the FMLA as long as the two conditions are "temporarily linked" and affect "the same organ system." More ›

EEOC Issues Guidance on Employers’ use of Arrest and Conviction Records

April 26, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

When can an employer conduct a criminal background check on an applicant or existing employee?   More ›

EEOC: Discrimination Based on Gender Identity Violates Title VII

April 24, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The EEOC issued its decision in Macy v. Holder  yesterday in which it held that an employer who discriminates against an applicant or an employee on the basis of gender identity violates Title VII's prohibitions against sex discrimination.  

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives