Second Circuit Grants Injunctive Relief to Prevent Recurring Sexual Harassment

November 15, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC) brought a lawsuit on behalf of a class of female employees against a grocery store operating in Oswego, New York, alleging sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and New York State law. The sole alleged harasser was the store manager, who was alleged to have engaged in verbal and physical harassment. An employee made numerous complaints to management about this alleged harassment, but the store owner allegedly discredited the complaints, likely due to the fact that the store owner and the alleged harasser were in a long term romantic relationship. After a jury trial, the employee was awarded over $1.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages. More ›

Employee’s Facebook Pictures Reflecting Conduct Inconsistent with FMLA Leave Supports Employer’s Termination Decision

November 15, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an employer did not retaliate against an employee who had taken intermittent leave nor did it interfere with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) when it fired the employee for fraud. More ›

California Employers – Attend Hinshaw’s Complimentary Breakfast Briefing!

November 9, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Do you have employees in the state of California? You probably already know that managing employment issues in our fair state can prove to be very challenging, given that California's labor and employment laws are considerably different from federal and other state laws. More ›

Illinois Supreme Court: Employer Liable for Third-Party Investigator’s Invasion of Former Employee’s Privacy

November 5, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Based upon a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois employers have an additional reason to be careful when investigating misconduct by current and former employees. In the case, Lawlor v. North American Corporation of Illinois, Case No. 112530 (Oct. 18, 2012), the State’s highest court for the first time upheld an award of significant damages to a former employee based on the former employer's invasion of her privacy during an investigation into her competitive behavior. The decision is even more significant because the defendant employer was actually held vicariously liable for intrusions committed by a third-party investigator, signaling to all employers the importance of having a policy in place for such investigations. More ›

NLRB Advice Memos find Selected At-Will Provisions to be Lawful

November 1, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On October 31, 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Acting General Counsel released an analysis of at-will employment clauses in two employee handbooks, ultimately concluding that neither violated the law.  More ›

Thirteen Month gap Between Protected Activity and Alleged Retaliation Leads To Summary Judgment For Employer

October 29, 2012 by Ambrose V. McCall

In Anderson v. Donahoe, a U.S. Postal Service employee suffered from asthma. The employee claimed his employer failed to accommodate his disability which allegedly arose due to flare ups of his condition that he experienced while working as a part-time mail processor. For seven years, from 2002 through 2009, the employee filed multiple complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in addition to union grievances, requesting a reasonable accommodation of his disability. During the same seven-year period, the employee had extended periods of absences from work. The employee sued his employer claiming that it had violated the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Rehabilitation Act. The trial court granted the employer summary judgment. The employee appealed. The Seventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of summary judgment against the employee. More ›

Tax Court Finds Masonry Contractors to be “Employees”

October 29, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In this case, the employer, an S corporation that operated a masonry subcontracting business, treated its workers as independent contractors and not employees. The workers were hired on a per-job basis, brought their own tools to the jobs, were free to work for other employers and were paid on a piecework basis in cash. The payments made to the workers were often not adequately recorded and minimal documentation existed. The employer was then selected for an employment tax audit through which the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determined the workers should have been categorized as employees. As a result it determined the employer owed employment taxes it should have originally withheld, along with penalties and interest on these amounts and penalties for the failure to file returns and remit these amounts. More ›

Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Against Illinois Eavesdropping Law Claim

October 5, 2012 by Ambrose V. McCall

Illinois is somewhat unique among the states when it comes to its eavesdropping statute. Illinois has a statute which prohibits recording a phone conversation unless all the parties to the conversation consent. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1). In the same act, persons are barred from later using or distributing any data procured through a recording that lacks the required unanimous consent. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(3). There are exceptions, and a significant one covers a situation where one of the parties to the conversation has fear of a crime occurring. 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i). The statutory exception imposes specific requirements, including that one of the parties to the conversation makes or requests the making of the recording, that said person has a reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime against that person or a member of that person's immediate household, and that the recording of the conversation may produce evidence of that criminal offense. Id. More ›

NLRB: Auto Dealership did not Violate Labor Law when it Fired Employee for Posting Facebook Photos of Accident at Sales Event

October 2, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a decision made public yesterday, the National Labor Relations Board determined that a car dealership employee who was terminated for posting mocking photos on Facebook of a serious accident at its "Ultimate Driving Event" was not engaged in concerted activity, and that his termination. therefore, did not violate the National Labor Relations Act. The decision in Knauz Motors, Inc. d/b/a Knauz BMW, Case 13-CA-046452 (Sep. 28, 2012), is not all good news for employers, however, as the Board suggested that other photos posted by the employee, which mocked the food at the sales event — but which no other employee commented on or joined in — constituted protected activity because they related to earlier complaints from the sales team regarding the food. More ›

Connecticut Court: Dodd-Frank "Whistleblower" Protection Extends to Informal SEC Complaints

September 28, 2012 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A federal district court in Connecticut this week held that the federal Dodd-Frank Act protects a larger class of “whistleblowers” than many previously thought. In allowing the claimant’s “whistleblower" retaliation claim to survive a motion to dismiss, the judge ruled that Dodd-Frank’s definition of “whistleblower” was broad enough to protect not only those who file official complaints with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC), but also those who provide the SEC with informal letters complaining of unlawful practices. The judge rejected concerns that such an interpretation would allow Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision — with its longer statute of limitations and double-pay awards – to effectively swallow the corresponding provisions of the (less claimant-friendly) Sarbanes-Oxley Act: “the Dodd-Frank Act appears to have been intended to expand upon the protections of Sarbanes-Oxley,” the judge noted, “and thus the claimed problem is no problem at all.” More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives