Employment Law Strategist

  • Recent Developments in Executive Compensation

    Although executive compensation has been the subject of evolving reform for several years, the bright spotlight of public attention is now focused on this issue, due in part to the bursting of the stock market bubble, the collapse of Enron, and a number of other highly publicized corporate scandals. The image of executives enjoying excessive compensation packages as revenues and earnings decline, and stock values of the companies they manage plummet, is a dangerously common stereotype.

    March 02, 2004Dennis P. R. Codon and David L. Lynch

  • Bullies in the Workplace

    Bullying isn't just a playground issue. In an era of declining unionization, job insecurity, and the global profit squeeze, bullying has become a serious workplace problem, even though workplace bullies usually prefer memos, informal disciplinary meetings and grinding criticism to spitballs. Left unchecked, on-the-job abuse adversely affects both employers and employees. Current legal theories, though, are inadequate to address this recent phenomenon.

    March 02, 2004Eric Matusewitch

  • Investors May Be Liable to WARN Act Plaintiffs

    Major investors in companies that commit violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act may not be immune to liability, according to a federal court sitting in the Southern District of New York. Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC, No. 02 Civ. 2059 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 1, 2004). Relying on Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, the court denied a motion to dismiss the claims of a class of plaintiffs who were terminated by a bankrupt company against the investors in the bankrupt entity.

    March 02, 2004Mark A. Konkel

  • National Litigation Hotline

    National rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    February 09, 2004ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • ADA Denial of Rehire

    Recently, a unanimous, seven-member, United States Supreme Court held that the only relevant question on summary judgment in an action alleging disparate treatment under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) was whether there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that an employer made its decision based on an employee's status as disabled, notwithstanding the employer's proffered explanation. Raytheon Company v. Hernandez, 504 US __ , 124 S.Ct. 513 (2003). The Court further held that the employer's unwritten policy against rehiring former employees who were terminated for any violation of its misconduct rules was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason under the ADA. This case briefing discusses the Court's opinion in Raytheon, and the decision's implications for employers.

    February 09, 2004Rochelle B. Briscoe

  • Lump Sum Damages: What Happens to Employers?

    More often than not, it is the defendant who brings the post-trial motions that follow a jury finding that an employer is liable for employment discrimination. Those motions normally seek, among other things, a new trial, a judicial determination that the evidence did not support the verdict, and/or a remittitur of the damages awarded. Less common are substantive motions brought by the victorious plaintiff, such as a motion for additur, where a damages award larger than that assessed by the jury is sought. That may soon change, as victims of discrimination, bolstered by a new trial court decision from New Jersey, may seek to hold their employer responsible for any increased taxes that he or she may have to pay as a result of winning at trial. Such a tactic has the potential to increase greatly -- perhaps into six figures -- the amount of damages for which the employer found to have discriminated may be liable.

    February 09, 2004David H. Ganz