ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
National cases of interest to your practice.
Dennis P. R. Codon
&
David L. Lynch
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.
Features
Eric Matusewitch
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.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
Mark A. Konkel
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. <i>Vogt v. Greenmarine Holding, LLC</i>, 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.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
National rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Rochelle B. Briscoe
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. <i>Raytheon Company v. Hernandez</i>, 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 <i>Raytheon</i>, and the decision's implications for employers.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
David H. Ganz
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.
