Subscribe by RSS
Subscribe by EmailSupreme Court
Do’s and Don’ts of Hiring an Independent Contractor
Independent Contractor Agreements – A Match Made in Heaven?
Today’s employers are watching their bottom line more closely than ever before, including examining the costs associated with maintaining a full time workforce.
At the same time, workers are looking for ways to increase their independence, decrease their commutes and overall to increase their quality of life. [...]
Four Supreme Court Employment Decisions in One Day!
Score that employees 2, employers 2. High Court rules: disability retirement program did not discriminate on age; employer has burden of proving reasonable factor other than age in age discrimination disparate impact cases; insurer conflict of interest is factor to consider in ruling on ERISA plan claims denials; California regulation of union-related activities of state-funded employers ispreempted by National Labor Relations Act.
Supreme Court Implies Retaliation Prohibition Twice in One Day
As we returned from the Memorial Day holiday on May 27, 2008, we were greeted by a pair of Supreme Court decisions with a similar theme: whether a law prohibiting a type of employment discrimination should be interpreted to also prohibit retaliation for opposing such discrimination, though it contains no reference whatsoever to retaliation.
The decisions are not earthshaking in their practical impact. But they are noteworthy for showing solid Supreme Court majorities willing to: (1) decide employment cases in favor of employees; (2) look well beyond a conservative text-based reading of a law; and (3) apply Supreme Court decisions decided by earlier, more liberal Courts, even if they do not agree with such decisions.
Senate Blocks Compensation Discrimination Amendment (Fair Pay Act, Part 1 of 2)
Last week Republicans blocked legislation (Fair Pay Act) intended to reverse last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., widely criticized for making it easier for employers to get away with pay discrimination.
This is Part I of a two-part series on the Ledbetter case and why legislation to overturn it is not urgent and perhaps unwise.
Supreme Court Punts Sprint “Me Too” Evidence Case Back to Lower Court
In its recent unanimous decision in Sprint v. Mendelsohn, the Supreme Court largely dodged the tough issue before it: admissibility of “me-too” evidence in discrimination cases — testimony of other employees who believed they too had been discriminated against.
The trial court had excluded such evidence at trial, and Sprint had prevailed. On appeal, two Tenth Circuit judges voted to reverse and order a new trial on the basis that the trial court should have allowed this evidence, but the third judge on the panel wrote a strong dissent supporting its exclusion.
The Supreme Court reversed, sending the case back to the trial court for further explanation of its exclusion of the “me-too” evidence. Its brief and unanimous opinion failed to provide a clear answer. Instead, it provided what may be viewed as a non-answer, indicating that “me-too” evidence may or may not be admissible, depending on many factors.
