Readers of a certain vintage, will remember Gilda Radner’s character Emily Litella who often said “Never Mind”. (If you’ve never heard of Gilda Ratner or this, then I’ll pause while you watch this classic video.) Readers of a later vintage will think of Nirvana’s “Nevermind”. If you just want the dictionary definition, here
Last Friday, lawyers representing two government officials petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether former a 2002 state decision to layoff only union personnel violated those employee’s constitutional rights.
Back in June 2013, you may recall that the Second Circuit ruled that such layoffs did violate the right of association. I’ve
Busy week here. So, it’s time to bring back a recurring post of “Quick Hits” of articles you may have missed along the way. Here are some of my recent favorites:
It’s always a little tricky to determine exactly how lower courts will apply a rule of law that develops from a U.S. Supreme Court.
Take the case of University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, decided in June, which held that a “but for” standard (i.e., that an employer would not have taken
In Tuesday’s The New York Times, an article (that, as of Monday evening was one of the lead pieces on the NYTimes.com website) argues that age discrimination continues to exist in society and that it is hitting the baby boomers particularly hard. (Indeed, the article’s tag is “for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive”.)
I do not challenge the assertion
Back in June, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, I made a fairly easy prediction:
The federal FMLA is also anticipated to undergo some pretty big changes in states that approve same-sex marriages. Already in 2010, the FMLA regulations suggested that married same-sex couples could take time off to care for a newborn
Early on Wednesday, shortly before the Supreme Court issued its landmark rulings in same-sex marriage cases, I had the fortunate opportunity to return to one of my favorite radio shows, Where We Live. (You can relive my previous experiences here and here, for starters.)
In another big win for employers today, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII retaliation cases must be proved by a “but for” standard of proof, not a lower standard that had been used in various courts before.
At issue in the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar case is the following question
Last week, while most of us were focused on the events in Boston, the U.S. Supreme Court came down with a notable decision last week involving a wage & hour class action (it’s actually called a “collective” action, but for the non-lawyers out there, just think of it as a class action) and what should happen when a class representative fails to accept an offer to compromise by the employer that would have made the plaintiff “whole”.
Before you get too excited, its worth noting to the human resources professional out there that it’s hard to see how this case is going to change the day-to-day advice you are giving. This Supreme Court’s decision is one only a lawyer could love.
But the case is important for employers and lawyers, because it provides another tool to use in defending against wage & hour claims.
Indeed, combined with the court’s recent decisions limiting class actions (see Comcast Corp v. Behrand case) and enforcing arbitration provisions (see AT&T v. Concepcion line of cases), it demonstrates how the court system is grappling with an increasing number of wage & hour claims that threaten to overwhelm the system.
The Symczyk case has been neatly recapped in the Employment Class Action blog here:
The plaintiff brought FLSA claims challenging the employer’s use of an “auto-deduct” policy for meal periods. Along with its answer, the defendant made a Rule 68 offer to the plaintiff of judgment for $7,500, plus attorney fees and costs to be determined by the court….
When the plaintiff did not respond to the offer, the defendant moved to dismiss the case. The district court dismissed the FLSA claims on the basis of Rule 68 and remanded the remaining state law claims….
The Supreme Court … found that the district court had correctly dismissed the case. Because the plaintiff did not contest that her own personal claim would have been satisfied by the offer, the majority assumed that it did, indeed, moot her individual claim. .
Ultimately, the Court held that an offer of judgment under Rule 68 that satisfies the representative plaintiff’s claims moots a potential collective action under the FLSA.
Continue Reading Offers of Judgment in FLSA Collective Actions: Another Tool for Wage & Hour Claims
I’m going to let you in on a little secret.
Not all employment law cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court matter are of equal significance and importance to employers.
What? How can that be, you say? It’s the SUPREME COURT! Isn’t everything that they say important?
Well, sort