National cases for your review.

Features

On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court held in <i>Li</i> and <i>Kennedy v. Oregon</i> that the roughly 3000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County are not valid. The Supreme Court's decision may change the obligations and opportunities for employers, depending on the nature of the employer and the decisions the employer has previously made regarding whether or not to treat certain partners of employees as if they were spouses.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Features

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In <i>Smith v. Jackson, Miss.</i>, the Court held that employees aged 40 and over can assert claims for age discrimination under the ADEA based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy, even in the absence of discriminatory intent on the employers' part. In so doing, the Court reconciled a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal and aligned its view concerning the scope of the ADEA with its view of the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to prior Court decisions, permits employees to allege discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy. Because employees located in the geographic areas covered by the federal circuits whose courts of appeal formerly prohibited the assertion of such claims under the ADEA can now assert disparate impact claims under the ADEA, the Smith opinion will likely result in increased litigation under the ADEA in respect of these types of claims.

Features

More than 2 years ago, the Internal Revenue Service published Revenue Ruling 2002-22, 2002-19 I.R.B. 849, in which it held that section 1041 of the Internal Revenue Code governed the transfer of stock options and interests in certain unfunded deferred compensation arrangements to the employee's spouse under a marital property settlement. As a result, the employee spouse was not taxable on the transfer. Instead, the spread on the options (the difference between the value of the employer 's stock at the time of exercise and the striking price) and the amount received as deferred compensation under unfunded arrangements were taxable to the nonemployee spouse in the same way and to the same extent as it would have been taxed to the employee.

Features

Recent rulings for your review.

Features

What employees do on their own time is their own business, right? Except when you think it may adversely impact your business. It's one thing for an employee to harbor extreme political views. It's another thing to blog them to the world. An employee's private sex life is, well, private. But what if an employee blogs his or her sexual fantasies to the world? Does an employer have the right to take action against an employee for off-duty blogging it finds offensive or otherwise problematic?

National rulings you need to know.