LJN Newsletters

An umbrella insurance policy that covers a company's employees while "acting within their duties" should cover a worker who drove out of town on a weekend in search of a company cell phone he'd lost -- even if he stopped for personal errands on the way home, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Since the Supreme Court's decision in McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co. 513 U.S. 352 (1995), authorizing employers to contest back pay and front pay/reinstatement remedies if they acquire evidence during discovery that would have led to the plaintiff's termination irrespective of the disputed reason, employers have expanded the reach of their discovery efforts. The purpose: Find anything in the employee's background that the employer can argue would have led to the employee's termination anyway, thereby precluding the potentially costly remedies of back pay and front pay/reinstatement per the McKennon decision. This article posits some possible countermeasures for plaintiffs to employ in combating the "after-acquired evidence" defense.

Do you know the answer?

Beginning March 1, 2004, 21 Southern District judges began participating in the district's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system.

The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.

The Local Civil Rules for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York regarding motions for Reconsideration or Re-argument, and Statements of Material Facts on Motions for Summary Judgment, have been amended effective March 26, 2004.

Are welfare recipients who participate in mandatory Work Experience Programs (WEP) protected by statutes such as Title VII and the FLSA? In an expansive reading of the definition of employees, two federal courts recently ruled that such "workers" are "employees" within the meaning of the federal statutory scheme and, therefore, may seek relief for discrimination at the workplace or for compensation for excess work.