Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in <i>McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co.</i> 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 <i>McKennon</i> decision. This article posits some possible countermeasures for plaintiffs to employ in combating the "after-acquired evidence" defense.
Features
Beginning March 1, 2004, 21 Southern District judges began participating in the district's Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system.
Features
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.
Features
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.
Your ethics questions answered by the expert!
Experienced employment lawyers know that getting both sides to say "yes" to settlement is a complicated task. The 1996 amendments to the tax code eliminating the previous exclusion of emotional harm damages from taxable income complicated the already difficult question of how to maximize the value of limited dollars to encourage settlement. With fewer options to maximize the value of limited settlement dollars, ultimately the tax consequence of the settlement becomes everyone's problem.
The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that reverse age discrimination claims are not cognizable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. ' 621 <i>et seq.</i> (ADEA) in <i>General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline</i>, 124 S. Ct. 1236 (2/24/04). Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Souter concluded that "the enemy of 40 is 30, not 50." <i>Id.</i> at 1243. What does this mean for employers and employees?
In last month's newsletter, we discussed the financial burdens pharmaceutical and biotech firms face due to the Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) policy of restriction practice -- the restriction of a patent application to prosecution of a single claimed invention per filing fee. Now we look at ways potential patentees can economically work with these restrictions.