Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
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.
Features
In last month's <i>Employment Law Strategist</i>, we explored the background to a growing conflict among the circuit courts regarding the availability of the so-called <i>Ellerth/Faragher</i> affirmative defense in constructive discharge cases. We began with an analysis of <i>Suders v. Easton</i>, 325 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2003), in which the Third Circuit held that holding an employer strictly liable for a constructive discharge resulting from the actionable harassment of its supervisors more faithfully adheres to the policy objectives set forth in <i>Ellerth</i> and <i>Faragher</i>. Granting <i>certiorari</i> to consider the Third Circuit's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has now undertaken to resolve the discord among the circuits.
An audit by Wal-Mart of 128 stores and over 25,000 employees has reportedly revealed thousands of labor violations at the Arkansas-based retailing chain, including 1371 violations of child labor laws, 60,000 missed breaks and16,000 skipped meal times, primarily in violation of state labor laws. The July, 2000 internal audit was apparently distributed to high-level company executives but has now come to public attention through lawsuits filed against the company, which employs more than 1.2 million U.S. workers.
Features
On Dec. 1, 2003, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a constructive discharge caused by a supervisor's sexual harassment constitutes a tangible employment action that bars an employer from raising the defense that the employee unreasonably failed to employ the employer's procedures for preventing and correcting such conduct. In granting the Pennsylvania State Police's request for review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's decision in <i>Suders v. Easton</i>, 325 F.3d 432 (3d Cir. 2003), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to resolve a growing conflict among the circuit courts regarding the availability of the so-called <i>Ellerth/Faragher</i> affirmative defense in constructive discharge cases.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held an employer that fired two nonunion workers for complaining to a client about their employer's policies violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
Features
The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACT), which amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), was recently enacted. The FCRA created a national credit reporting system, and was set to expire this month. FACT permanently authorizes the majority of the FCRA's provisions while including two noteworthy revisions. Particularly significant for employers are FACT Sections 611 and 411, which include new standards for third-party investigations of employee wrongdoing and reporting of employee medical information to employers.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
National rulings of interest to your practice.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.