LawMemo Employment Law Blog Archives | Main

• Cert granted: Is the NLRB authorized to act when only two of its five positions are filled?
  

• Same-sex harassment: Absurd decision by the 5th Circuit
  

• LawMemo's Latest Cases - Sneak Preview
  

• New GINA rules protect patients’ genetic information
  

• Weil Gotshal acquires Merrill Lynch employment law head
  

• Cert granted in Title VII statute of limitations case
  

• EEOC announces 32 suits in past seven days
  

• LeClairRyan seminar on key employment law issues
  

• EEOC's Proposed regulations under ADAA
  

• Obama's NLRB - What Changes To Expect [Wow]
  

• Appointees to Federal Service Impasses Panel
  

• Accessing computer to further employee's own personal interests was not "without authorization"
  

• Miller & Chevalier Expands ERISA and Fiduciary Litigation Practice
  

• Jackson Lewis snags leading labor law practitioner from Littler
  

• National Education Association affiliate to pay for allegedly harassing women again
  

• Circuit Court denies injunction of E-Verify rule
  

• Connecticut Employment Law Blog, by Daniel Schwartz
  

• Work Matters, by Mike Maslanka
  

• WI - No negligent supervision for security manager's internet posting of adulterated photos
  

• Court approves E-Verify requirement
  

• EEOC v. At&T class action for age discrimination
  

• CA - Last chance agreement cannot waive statutory right to notice and hearing
  

• MA - Arbitration agreement did not cover state statutory discrimination claims (6-1)
  

• 11th - No class certification for claimed failure to pay for all hours worked
  

• 7th - Employee unable to show age discrimination during RIF
  

• WI - State law age discrimination claim was barred by "ministerial exception" (4-3)
  

• 5th - FLSA doesn’t require paying recruitment, transportation, visa expenses for foreign guest workers
  

• Great customers
  

• Third nomination to NLRB
  

• Internal complaints are protected activity under FLSA, but must be in writing
  

• Cert granted on Section 301 suit: tortious interference and duty to arbitrate
  

• Cert granted in ERISA case
  

• City violated Title VII by discarding racially disproportionate test results (5-4)
  

• Employer required to disgorge employee's emails to her attorney
  

• Supreme Court will hear False Claims Act qui tam case
  

• Employment Law Memo 06/22/2009
  

• SCOTUS - Age discrimination: Burden of proof never shifts
  

• Supreme Court: Mixed motives jury instruction "is never proper in an ADEA case"
  

• Who is "management" in co-worker sexual harassment cases?
  

• You can be fired in retaliation for your fiancée's protected activity
  

• 5th - EEOC prevails in chronic fatigue syndrome ADA case
  

• Supervisors can share in tips put into collective tip boxes
  

• SCOTUS - Seniority system trumps pre-PDA pregnancy differential
  

• Is 2-Member NLRB authorized to issue orders? Opposite decisions on the same day.
  

• 2-Member NLRB lacks authority to issue orders
  

• President to nominate two NLRB Members
  

• Reporting supervisor's viewing of porn at work did not support retaliatory discharge claim
  

• Driving is not a major life activity under the ADA
  

• Supreme Court transcript in employment discrimination case
  

• US Supreme Court: Union can waive employee's right to sue for discrimination
  

• NLRB's ADR Program for ULP cases is now permanent
  

• Employment Law Memo 03/23/2009 [Typically only by email]
  

• Article: When Does Foreign Law Compel US Employer to Discriminate
  

• Employer snooped email; no statutory damages without actual damages
  

• Arguments for a stay in Golden Gate Restaurant Assn v San Francisco
  

• Restaurant owners to Supreme Court: Please help us
  

• Decision by two-member quorum of NLRB was lawful
  

• Agreement waiving class-wide arbitration was unconscionable
  

• Court declines to recognize “reverse” alter ego doctrine
  

• No en banc rehearing on San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance
  

• Supreme Court accepts post-argument briefs in AT&T v Hulteen
  

• New link for GINA regulations
  

• Comments on EEOC's GINA regulations
  

• Text: Proposed EEOC reg on Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (GINA)
  

• $161,000 settlement of EEOC sexual harassment suit
  

• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (”GINA”) regs are out.
  

• AT&T v Hulteen: One more post-argument brief on Ledbetter Act's effect on Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  

• Hilda Harris confirmed for Labor, Seth Harris to be deputy
  

• Ban on political payroll deductions does not infringe unions' 1st amendment rights
  

• Due process a ground to vacate arbitration award?
  

• Employment Law Blog Review 02/20/2009
  

• Employment Law Blog Review 02/15/2009
  

• Gigantic Wal-Mart class action goes to en banc rehearing
  

• AT&T v Hulteen post-argument brief on Ledbetter Act's effect on Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  

• A poker deck printed with labor laws
  

• Solis will be confirmed as Secretary of Labor
  

• Ledbetter Act apply to demotions and promotions?
  

• Employee must answer questions without formal grant of immunity
  

• Restatement of Employment Law: An embarrassment
  

• Prediction: Taxes will scuttle Solis nomination for Labor Secretary
  

• Zodiac sign determines who gets hired
  

• Two 9th Circuit Judges Order Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses of Court Employees
  

• Added damages to compensate for adverse tax consequences of lump-sum back pay award
  

• "Wage controls" for bailed-out executives
  

• Edward Hugler is Acting Labor Secretary, awaiting Hilda Solis' confirmation
  

• EEOC General Counsel Ronald Cooper Returns To Private Practice
  

• FULL TEXT: Three executive orders relating to federal contractors
  

• President's executive orders on employees of federal contractors
  

• Boston employment lawyers: Conforto Law Group
  

• Oh, that 9th Circuit. Aren't they amusing?
  

• President to sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on January 29.
  

• Fisher & Phillips' new office in Louisville, Kentucky
  

• Petitioner's brief in Gross v. FBL Financial
  

• Job losses continue with no end in sight
  

• US Supreme Court holds that answering questions during employer's internal investigation is protected against retaliation
  

• Plant closed. Will NLRB order it to re-open?
  

• Restrictive covenants, Canada style
  

• Stuart J. Ishimaru is new Acting Chairman of EEOC
  

• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 awaits President's signature
  

• Wilma B. Liebman is new Chairman of the NLRB
  

• Cat's Paw - A new approach is suggested
  

• Locke v. Karass: Moderation at the Supreme Court
  

• Supreme Court allows local union to charge non-members for national litigation expenses
  

• Jobless in Oregon: Unemployment rate = 9%
  

• Criminal prosecution for en mass resignation?
  

• Employee Free Choice Act - Probably on hold
  

• Not a crime to resign an at-will nursing job - 13th amendment
  

• A radical proposal to nationalize workplace law
  

• Low interest rates are resulting in layoffs of legal aid lawyers
  

• David Yamada's "Minding the Workplace"
  

• Would you hire Timothy Geithner?
  

• LawMemo Employment Law Blog celebrates its fourth birthday
  

• Will the Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009 really matter? Ask George Jackson.
  

• Study finds (well, duh) racial bias in the advertising industry
  

• Transgender employee fired for "violating dress code." Not a Title VII violation
  

• Lawsuit delays E-Verify implementation date
  

• High-level discussion of proposed labor law reform
  

• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Of 2009 and Paycheck Fairness Act approved by the House
  

• No-match letter no-discussion rule was unfair labor practice
  

• US Supreme Court takes Title VII case on municipality's refusal to implement promotion exam results
  

• Auto Workers strike would trigger bailout default
  

• Paul Secunda drops blogging, Oh my
  

• Guess? What? Deposition question created an unfair labor practice
  

• Pregnancy Discrimination Act - AT&T v. Hulteen - Recap of Supreme Court arguments
  

• Employer’s Rule 68 offer of judgment to sole plaintiff in FLSA case may have been effective preemptive strike to collective action
  

• Direct evidence needed for mixed motive analysis?
  

• AT&T Corp v. Hulteen - Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  

• Don't fire the domestic violence victim
  

• Work Matters
  

• $3 million verdict - wrongful discharge
  

• Profanity was good cause for discharge.
  

• Jotting about Michael Fox
  

• Employment Law Memo 07/07/2008
  

• Transfer triggered due process rights
  

• No "class-of-one" equal protection for public employees
  

• PDA extends to abortions
  

• The end of the Restatement of the Law of Employment?
  

• Mixed-motive under the ADEA
  

• The Future of Labor and Employment Law
  

• Comments on joint petition rule
  

• Gentry: Cert denied
  

• Supreme Court tackles political activities payroll deductions
  

• Schaumber to chair NLRB
  

• Chamber v. Brown predictions
  

• NLRB proposes new form of joint petitions for consent election
  

• No individual liability for retaliation
  

• 25 words on Federal Express Corp v. Holowecki
  

• 25 words on Sprint/United Management
  

• Supreme Court reverses "me too" evidence decision
  

• Arbitrator, not Labor Commissioner, decides issues
  

• Gómez-Pérez v. Potter prediction
  

• Three new Supreme Court cases
  

• Employment retaliation at the Supreme Court
  

• A new name
  

• Ready for new FMLA regulations?
  

• Maggie Jacobsen Dies
  

• Effective immediately, FMLA covers care for member of armed forces
  

• Three nominees to NLRB
  

• Mike Maslanka: Dealing With Dysfunctional Counsel
  

• Whistleblower was offered $5,000, recovered $3,000,000
  

• Sarbanes-Oxley: An explanation from the 5th Circuit
  

• 4th Birthday
  

• Medical marijuana law gives no protection from the boss
  

• Supreme Court takes three employment law cases
  

• ADA accommodation case taken off Supreme Court docket
  

• Supreme Court takes "class of one" case
  

• 9th Circuit grants stay of injunction against San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance
  

• Age discrimination, retirement plans, and the Supreme Court
  

• Bush's NLRB Legacy: #5 of 12
  

• Bush's NLRB Legacy: #4 of 12
  

• Bush's NLRB Legacy: #3 of 12
  

• Punitive damages without an award of compensatory damages.
  

• Bush's NLRB Legacy: #2 of 12
  

• 2.5 MILLION for harrassing one employee
  

• Bush's NLRB Legacy: #1 of 12
  

• No BFOQ in ADA cases
  

• Paul Secunda moving to Marquette
  

• NLRB arranges for two-Member Board
  

• ERISA preempts San Francisco Health Care Security Ordinance
  

• Shopping mall cannot prevent newspaper employees from urging boycott of mall tenants
  

• Age discrimination disparate impact case heads to Supreme Court
  

• NLRB losing its quorum?
  

• NLRB bombs use of email for union organizing
  

• Supreme Court will decide ADA accommodation case
  

• LaRue v DeWolff - Transcript of an ERISA case in the US Supreme Court
  

• Will Supreme Court find a remedy for ERISA fiduciary breach?
  

• DHS will re-write rule on no-match letters, asks to suspend litigation
  

• US Supreme Court will decide labor preemption case
  

• Supreme Court rips EEOC
  

• FedEx v. Holowecki transcript
  

• Supreme Court: Is intake questionnaire an EEOC "charge"?
  

• Chamber v Brown at the Supreme Court
  

• NLRB policy shifts
  

• Understanding Employment Law
  

• No match rule injunction issued
  

• $27.5 million settles law firm age discrimination suit
  

• NLRB's new rules for voluntary recognition bar
  

• NLRB tightens up on "salts."
  

• $1.8 million same-sex settlement
  

• Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss ERISA case
  

• Supreme Court will decide benefit plan age discrimination case
  

• Supreme Court will decide 42 USC Section 1981 retaliation case
  

• Supreme Court will decide federal employer ADEA retaliation case
  

• 7 steps for a termination meeting
  

• ENDA to end sexual orientation discrimination
  

• NLRB seeks briefs on handbilling issues
  

• Welcome WorkplaceHorizons.com
  

• George's amazing Blawg Review
  

• Judge halts no-match letter rules
  

• Gentry arbitration commentary
  

• Congrats to Workplace Prof Blog
  

• ABA CLE on labor & employment law
  

• Minority bargaining required?
  

• No-Match Letters - new regulation
  

• Immigration-related questions in employment litigation
  

• "Hispanic" is national origin discrimination under Title VII
  

• $984,970 verdict for National Guard member
  

• Supreme Court takes ERISA fiduciary case
  

• Union loses "opt-in" agency fee case
  

• "Me too" case at the Supreme Court
  

• ERISA sponsor wins fiduciary argument
  

• Home care workers lose FLSA case
  

• NLRB: Calculating backpay for salters
  

• EEOC intake questionnaire at the Supreme Court
  

• ADA: Qualifications trumps reassignment right
  

• Some Reflections on the Ledbetter Decision
  

• Ledbetter loses pay discrimination case
  

• Dayton v. Hanson - appeal dismissed
  

• 3.6% winners under Sarbanes-Oxley
  

• Davenport v WEA developments
  

• Multiple medical leave claims
  

• ADEA cert petition
  

• Sexual orientation, gender identity discrimination unlawful in Oregon
  

• Employee or contractor?
  

• Wal-Mart wins religion case
  

• Supreme Court hears FLSA case
  

• BCI Coca-Cola v EEOC dismissed
  

• Supreme Court cases pending
  

• FLSA at the Supreme Court
  

• Airline strike injunction affirmed
  

• IRCA did not override wage claim
  

• Is Ken Starr Supreme Court Justices' "employer"?
  

• Whistleblower loses Supreme Court case
  

• Nurse was not "supervisor" under NLRA
  

• Undocumented workers get prevailing wage
  

• Personnel files, reputation, and the constitution
  

• Walgreens: "store assignments based on race"
  

• State controls interstate overtime
  

• "Class of one" theory rejected for public employment decisions
  

• No same-sex benefits for employees
  

• Wal-Mart class action approved
  

• FMLA comment period extended
  

• Attorney Labor Unions
  

• A call to end pre-dispute arbitration agreements
  

• EEOC v. Sidley Austin production motion
  

• $2.8 million settlement
  

• Forgotten Workers: Unprotected Volunteers
  

• Supreme Court will decide ERISA fiduciary case.
  

• Ash v. Tyson tries a comeback
  

• ERISA preempts Maryland Health Act
  

• NLRB takes on email issues
  

• Union dues and the 1st amendment
  

• Norfolk Southern v. Sorrell
  

• Supreme Court takes on FLSA case
  

• Supreme Court takes up "cat's paw" case
  

• Rehearing in Murphy tax case
  

• No accommodation for hearing impaired firefighter
  

• FMLA Request for Information
  

• Supreme Court remands ERISA case
  

• Paycheck discrimination and the Supreme Court
  

• NLRB Case production report
  

• Release of EEOC claims wasn't retaliation
  

• NLRB decides "Kentucky River" cases
  

• Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer: California wins
  

• Ledbetter v. Goodyear brief for petitioner
  

• Ministerial exception flip-flop in Petruska v. Gannon University
  

• Religious objection to unions
  

• Big Case #7 - ATU v. Laidlaw Transit
  

• Big Case #6 - Petruska v. Gannon University
  

• Gender-based salary discrimination claims, and burdens of proof
  

• Big Case # 5 - Ash v. Tyson Foods
  

• Anticipatory withdrawal of recognition didn't work
  

• Towboat pilots - an easy "Kentucky River" case
  

• No tax on emotional distress and reputation loss damages
  

• $1.12 million settlement in early retirement case
  

• ERISA standard of review - Big change in the 9th Circuit
  

• Big Case #4 - Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp
  

• Big Case #3 - Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services
  

• One racist comment, one report to management, one less employee
  

• Sun Microsystems ex-employee blog
  

• Big Case #2 - Garcetti v. Ceballos
  

• Big Case #1 - Burlington Northern v. White
  

• Ronald S. Cooper is EEOC General Counsel
  

• NLRB Members and General Counsel confirmed
  

• Retaliation for reporting off-duty off-premises co-worker harassment?
  

• Unanimous NLRB gives guidance on successor's obligation to hire
  

• What about "at will" did you not understand?
  

• President nominates Liebman for another NLRB term
  

• Harassment and constructive discharge
  

• Union can't photograph employees during literature distribution
  

• When charging party refuses to cooperate with EEOC
  

• Statutory rape is never "welcome" sexual harassment
  

• Deafness and Hearing Impairments and the Americans with Disabilities Act
  

• Must employer front-end employee's attorney fees when employer sues employee?
  

• WARN Act no help for airport security screeners
  

• $17 million verdict against labor union
  

• Sexual stereotypes - perceived to be gay
  

• Wal-Mart health care law is preempted - Part 2
  

• Wal-Mart health care law is preempted
  

• 4 rules of employment litigation
  

• Denise Howell leaving Reed Smith
  

• "Kentucky River" cases and the breakdown of the system
  

• Direct versus circumstantial evidence
  

• Whistleblower Protection Act triggered by canceling vacancy
  

• California sex harassment training in New York?
  

• Family Responsibility Discrimination (FRD)
  

• "Discharge" includes normal end of one-day assignment
  

• US Supreme Court Docket # 06-1
  

• Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer - a good four years
  

• Conservative judge issues seriously pro-employee decision
  

• Establishment of religion - in the Navy
  

• Redefining "disability"
  

• D. Michael Reilly - Employment lawyer interview
  

• Cal Ag interest arbitration is constitutional
  

• Supreme Court roundup
  

• Homeland Security Department way out of line
  

• Airport security company is under NLRB jurisdiction
  

• Independent contractor? or Employee?
  

• Burlington Northern v. White - Title VII retaliation - analysis
  

• Burlington Northern v. White - Title VII retaliation has broad definition
  

• Systemic compensation discrimination - new regs
  

• 3rd - Ministerial exception case will be re-heard.
  

• NLRB takes aim at arbitration clause
  

• Drinking in a public place while in uniform
  

• Inflatable rats featured in NLRB General Counsel report
  

• Workers compensation is not an employee benefit plan
  

• Employment law verdict reports
  

• Ministerial exception - the end is coming
  

• Appearance of bias at the NLRB
  

• Supreme Court picks its own issues
  

• EEOC hits FedEx with broad subpoena
  

• $48.9 Million In EEOC-Verizon Pregnancy Bias Settlement
  

• Mohawk Industries v. Williams - Wow, what happened?
  

• EEOC v. Alamo - Can't fire Muslim for wearing scarf
  

• Herrera today, gone tomorrow
  

• ERISA, bigamy, and choice of laws
  

• Garcetti v. Ceballos - Employee speech loses constitutional protection (5-4)
  

• Class action removal - "less" means "more"
  

• Ministerial exception limited in Petruska v. Gannon University
  

• Reasonable Accommodations For Attorneys With Disabilities
  

• Whitman v. Department of Transportation - more briefs
  

• EEOC settles cases
  

• Employment law resources
  

• ERISA - Sereboff, sanity, and the Supreme Court
  

• Third blog birthday for Michael Fitzgibbon
  

• Whitman v. Dept of Transportation - Supreme Court requests more briefs
  

• Religion at work - No prayers, no Bible
  

• Mohawk v. Williams - more on oral argument
  

• Mohawk Industries v. Williams oral argument
  

• Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Cook v. Rumsfeld
  

• Happy Third Birthday to Benefitsblog
  

• Sex harassment meets first amendment - court ducks the issue
  

• FMLA 50-employee threshold overcome by equitable estoppel
  

• EEOC policy on race and color discrimination
  

• Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co - a satire
  

• Gender-based grooming code survives Title VII attack
  

• State's definition of "disability" does not require a substantial limitation on a major life activity
  

• "Adverse employment action" argument in Supreme Court
  

• Dana Corp neutrality agreement before the NLRB
  

• Bathroom peeping did not create hostile work environment
  

• State bar is NLRB-exempt
  

• Massachusetts plan not preempted by ERISA
  

• Law professor tenure debate
  

• Ministerial exception: putting churches above the law
  

• Transsexuals and Title VII
  

• Mohawk v. Williams: RICO meets employment law
  

• EEOC aids Rastafarian against UPS
  

• Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic: Will ERISA plan get reimbursement from plan participants
  

• One million dollars for a hangman's noose
  

• Racial slurs but no smoking gun
  

• Supreme Court re-argument on employee speech
  

• Non-employment action can be retaliation
  

• Another $2 million for harassment
  

• EEOC goes after sexual harassment
  

• US Supreme Court unanimously upholds Solomon Amendment
  

• Burden of proof in disparate impact case
  

• Is "payment" for missed meal period a penalty or a wage?
  

• 42 USC Section 1981 limited to contracting parties
  

• Title VII's 15-employee threshold is not jurisdictional
  

• Supreme Court: "Slap you in the face" is the wrong test
  

• Supreme Court - "Boy" can be probative of racial bias
  

• Well settled NLRB rules
  

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act, ADEA, and ministers
  

• US Supreme Court re-argument in employee speech case
  

• City's Equal Benefits Law is preempted
  

• Discharge for having firearms on company property
  

• Can union require its employees to join the union?
  

• Maryland Wal-Mart law, and ERISA preemption
  

• Whistleblower: Be careful where you blow
  

• Religion discrimination complaint was OK
  

• Sick leave buy-back compensation is FLSA "pay"
  

• EEOC discrimination charges decline in 2005
  

• Standard of review in ERISA benefits denial
  

• Sexual orientation discrimination outlawed in Washington
  

• Statute means the exact opposite of what it says
  

• If you wanted a lie detector test, then don't complain
  

• Internet Job Applicant Recordkeeping Rule
  

• NLRB policy changes arriving soon
  

• $63.8 million age discrimination verdict: in the top 10
  

• Employment Law Blog birthday
  

• Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp argument
  

• Is Title VII 15-employee threshold jurisdictional?
  

• Electronic deadlines at the NLRB
  

• NLRB recess appointments
  

• EEOC at full strength
  

• Cintas employees vs. unions
  

• Employer must pay for psychotherapy time and travel time
  

• Wal-Mart lunch break verdict: $172,000,000
  

• Partners are "employees"? - EEOC v. Sidley Austin
  

• Non-competition agreements for in-house counsel
  

• USERRA regulations, posters, explanation
  

• Employment Law 101 - moved
  

• Parental leave - mothers and fathers are different
  

• WARN Act - California style
  

• Discharge in violation of public policy: Employment Law 101: #8 of 60
  

• Employment lawyer - how to find one
  

• Employee vs. employer civil RICO
  

• $300 million generated from whistleblowers
  

• Good faith and fair dealing: Employment Law 101: #7 of 60
  

• DOL improves web site
  

• Employer handbooks: Employment Law 101: #6 of 60
  

• Sue Your Boss Law
  

• Lambda Legal's "Of Counsel" newsletter
  

• Non-contracting party standing: 42 USC 1981
  

• Express contracts: Employment Law 101: #5 of 60
  

• Solomon amendment will survive
  

• "Adverse employment action" reaches Supreme Court
  

• Collective bargaining agreements: Employment Law 101: #4 of 60
  

• Solomon amendment tested in US Supreme Court
  

• 42 USC 1981 suit by non-contracting party
  

• Federal employees' access to federal courts
  

• NLRB GC meets performance goals
  

• Employment at-will: Employment Law 101: #3 of 60
  

• Medical marijuana, discharge, and California's Compassionate Use Act
  

• Disciplinary grievance cannot bypass Personnel Board
  

• $72.3 million false claim
  

• Sexual orientation: $1,914,104 verdict affirmed
  

• Sources of employment law: Employment Law 101: #2 of 60
  

• Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical; law vs. equity
  

• Introducing Employment Law 101: Employment Law 101: #1 of 60
  

• Employment Law 101
  

• Add to Google button
  

• Section 1983 did not override state's immunity statute
  

• EEOC revises EEO-1 report
  

• Peter N. Kirsanow nominated for NLRB
  

• Who owns faculty-generated intellectual property?
  

• Donning and doffing: IBP v. Alvarez; Tum v. Barber Foods
  

• States' best practices regarding individuals with disabilities
  

• Why does the EEOC sue?
  

• Solomon amendment case briefs
  

• EEOC discusses blindness and visual impairments
  

• Supreme Court transcripts
  

• Cooperate with the EEOC or lose your case
  

• Associating with disabled individuals
  

• NLRB still has only three Members
  

• EEOC "Freedom to Compete" award
  

• Internal whistleblowing and the first amendment
  

• Supreme Court arguments in FLSA case
  

• US Supreme Court: Preview of Employment Law Cases
  

• US Supreme Court argument on whether walking and waiting time are compensable
  

• Argument audio: Who decides unconscionability?
  

• EEOC's retiree health care regulation upheld
  

• Monocular vision was a disability
  

• Employers can use state funds to fight unions
  

• Sexual harassment without sexual conduct
  

• Does "regarded as" disabled employee get accommodation?
  

• Schaumber gets NLRB recess appointment
  

• Paramedics/firefighters not exempt from FLSA
  

• Teaching contracts
  

• Arbitration Blog? Try it.
  

• Work Law Blogs: Step 2
  

• EEOC-McDonald's mediation agreement
  

• Arbitration Law Memo
  

• Substantial limitation on walking
  

• Fire that one and get "somebody hot"
  

• Cert petition on post-termination hearing
  

• Employment Law Memo
  

• NLRB Law Memo
  

• Off-payroll employees excluded from ERISA plan
  

• State secrets trump Title VII
  

• Work Law Blogs
  

• Diabetic was a direct threat to safety
  

• Seniority can't control appointments
  

• "Reverse" age discrimination unlawful in Minnesota
  

• Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer
  

• Restraining order isn't a COBRA "qualifying event"
  

• Fetching a car is not FMLA-protected leave
  

• ADA - Medical evidence not needed at summary judgment stage
  

• Article: Prohibiting employee conversations
  

• Same-actor inference
  

• Secret surveillance
  

• Book review: "Labor Relations Law"
  

• NLRB nominations: An interesting switch
  

• US Supreme Court roundup
  

• Cert granted on Civil Service Reform Act
  

• Anti-class-action clause was unconscionable
  

• False Claims Act retaliation claim statute of limitations
  

• Practical joke not covered by insurance
  

• Bannering was not unlawful secondary picketing
  

• Privacy vs. union organizing
  

• George's Employment Blawg
  

• Article: How Employment Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare
  

• Refusing to Retire: What Can Be Done
  

• EEOC notice not posted might toll tardy filing
  

• Senate: Please confirm two NLRB nominees
  

• Correction: Rehearing on use of state funds.
  

• NASD rules preempt state ethics rules for arbitrators
  

• Article on Restatement Of Employment Law
  

• En banc rehearing on use of state funds (corrected)
  

• Gender-specific standards go to en banc hearing
  

• Tum v. Barber Foods - Petitioners' brief
  

• Is 15-employee threshold jurisdictional?
  

• Walsh re-nominated to NLRB
  

• FLSA opinion letters on line
  

• Skimpy EEOC charge was good enough
  

• Legalese torpedoes waiver of ADEA claims
  

• Military recruiting issue goes to Supreme Court
  

• Feds target OSHA crimes
  

• Supreme Court gets 42 USC 1981 case
  

• This corporation was a 42 USC 1981 "person"
  

• Do volunteers get statutory protection?
  

• Class Action Fairness Act does not apply . . .
  

• Four-fifths test is not a safe harbor
  

• Physicians' non-compete clause OK in New Jersey
  

• ADEA allows disparate impact claims - sort of
  

• Transfer was not retaliation
  

• An arbitration system goes down in flames
  

• Two tales of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
  

• NLRB's new "full consent election" agreement
  

• NASD rules preempt state ethics rules for arbitrators?
  

• Whistleblowing Assistant DA gets to US Supreme Court
  

• Supreme Court resources
  

• Automatic Updates Made Easy
  

• Hotel unions escape NLRB charge
  

• Are walking and waiting time compensable?
  

• Sexual harassment and the church
  

• Employer regarded alcoholic as being disabled
  

• Romantically motivated favoritism is not sex discrimination
  

• Federal question in underlying dispute supports jurisdiction to hear petition to compel arbitration
  

• NLRB continues to watch non-union employers
  

• Does disparate impact theory apply in age discrimination cases?
  

• Meisburg renominated to NLRB
  

• Plaintiffs pay tax on portion of settlement that went to attorneys
  

• NLRB allows e-filing for all documents in all cases
  

• Private action for retaliation under Title IX?
  

• One non-pretextual reason is enough
  

• Get automatic updates
  

---

---

EEOC | NLRB | Supreme Court |  Employment Law Blog | Arbitration Blog | Employment Law 101

 

	Web www.LawMemo.com  This form will search the LawMemo web site. It does not include the Caselaw Database.