Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
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.
Multiple regression analysis, a statistical tool often used in litigation as evidence in employment-discrimination suits, can also be useful in product liability matters to show probable causation and also to show the probable range of economic damages.
The ever-increasing use of electronic communications and storage systems, ranging from e-mail to word processing documents, to computerized databases, has greatly changed the nature of document preservation and production. As more and more people create, utilize and store electronic data in various formats, electronic discovery issues have become increasingly important in litigation.
The first part of this series, published last month, addressed the definition of trade secrets in the context of discovery. As efforts to obtain trade secret information increase, a clear definition of trade secret is vital for the courts to analyze this issue correctly. This second installment addresses that analysis, and the standards and terminology courts apply to decide whether trade secrets should be disclosed, the arguments and evidence that parties resisting this discovery can present to the trial court, and strategies to limit the potential for additional damage if trade secrets are ordered produced.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.