Today’s post comes courtesy of my colleague Jarad Lucan who weaves baseball and labor law into a single post. Well, baseball, labor law and Wal-mart.
And he reminds us that the National Labor Relations Board still has the ability to surprise….
Read on.
With spring training just around the corner, I’m reminded of one of
In this week’s Connecticut Law Tribune Labor & Employment Law Supplement, I penned a piece about the impact of the new U.S. Supreme Court cases from this past term.
My conclusions?
It is premature to announce the death of wage and hour class actions. But the cases suggest a different future for those types of
Over the last 24 hours, there’s been a lot written about the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes. Frankly, all of them are starting to say the same thing: The decision is going to hamper all class-action discrimination cases going forward.
But that statement tends to simplify the decision a bit too much. In my view, what the decision stands for is that it will be increasingly unlikely that the mega-class action (the one that covers an entire company) will be able to proceed without a very specific and tangible practice or policy that the plaintiffs can point too.
What types of things are we talking about? Well, it would be unlikely, but suppose a company had a mandatory retirement age of 60 but without a legitimate basis for doing so. In essence, it was a company-wide practice of discriminating against older workers. That type of class action will probably survive.
Continue Reading Wal-Mart v. Dukes: What The Class-Action Decision Really Means for Employers
Back in March, I reported on the likelihood of a victory for Wal-Mart in an important class action case up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
This morning, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the class action against the nation’s largest employer, saying, in essence, that the
Nearly everyone has chimed in over the oral argument in Wal-mart v. Dukes over the last 36 hours up at the Supreme Court. And nearly everyone seems to be predicting an outright victory to Wal-mart.
Because we don’t even have a decision yet, I’ll leave it to others to prognosticate (read: guess) what
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning agreed to hear Wal-Mart’s appeal of a decision that granted certification to what would be the largest employment discrimination class action case ever heard in the United States. The SCOTUSBlog has the definitive wrapup here.
The underlying case has raised allegations of sex discrimination by cu.jpg)
rrent and female
Today, The New York Times reported on a privileged memo sent to Wal-Mart from its outside lawfirm back in 1995 that "found widespread gender disparities in pay and promotion at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and urged the company to take basic steps — like posting every job opening and creating specific goals to promote
Today was Day 1 of the ABA Presidential Summit on Diversity being held just outside Washington, DC.
Recapping such a conference in a blog post is impossible; I won’t even begin to try. But I thought I would pass along some thoughts from the conference’s Twitter feed.
So, in response to the question on
Today’s Guest Blogger is Evil HR Lady. I should tell you that I do know her first name; but she has told me that she’d hunt me down if I revealed her identity. 
So instead, I’ve asked her to provide a short blurb to introduce her; here was her candid response:
Evil HR Lady
Last month, I reported that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case of Huber v. Wal-
Mart, to decide whether disabled employees must be reassigned to a vacant position for which they are qualified or merely be permitted to apply for such a position.
Yesterday, however, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to