The newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Labor & Employment Law
Browse articles by year: 2014 (3)
Newsletter articles from 2007
Hewlett-Packard’s Chairman, Patricia Dunn, was allegedly upset about leaks to the media about the company’s long term strategic plans. Hewlett-Packard retained an outside firm to gain access to its directors’ phone records, believing that one or more directors were the source of the leak.
Failure to insure contraceptives was not sex discrimination
Union Pacific Railroad provided health care benefits to its employees who were covered by collective bargaining agreements. While the health plans provided benefits for services such as routine physical exams, they excluded coverage for a number of things.
Mass flu outbreak: Employment implications
Not “if” but “when.” According to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), a pandemic, likely an influenza break- out, is inevitable. Some CDC recommendations have employment law implications. For example, if employees become ill, an obvious issue may be the need to satisfy Family and Medical Leave Act obligations.
The need to accommodate workplace proselytization?
There is an increase in the number of employees who desire to not only discuss their religious beliefs and practices at work, but who also hold religiously based needs to proselytize or affirmatively oppose “sin” in the workplace.
Retaliation: How to prove it, How to avoid it. Attorney’s Perspective – Plaintiff
In cases where the plaintiff claims that she was retaliated against for exercising her rights under the ADEA, the usual common law tort damages, such as emotional distress, may be recovered. The same is true for retaliation cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The expectation is that the same would hold true for retaliation claims under the FMLA, although there do not appear to be any Seventh Circuit decisions on point.
Sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace
Imagine being called into your employer’s boardroom and being told: “You’re a great employee, but you’re gay, so...you’re fired!” Federal law does not prohibit this kind of conduct by the employer. And in 33 states it is not an unlawful employment practice.
Union not entitled to employee e-mail addresses
In Trustees of Columbia University, Case 2-RC-22355 (August 9, 2007), a majority of a panel of the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) found the employer did not violate the law when it refused to provide the union with e-mail addresses of eligible voters.
United States Supreme Court crystallizes time limitation for EEOC claims
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that an employee who has suffered a discriminatory pay decision must file a questionnaire with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of such decision in order to preserve a cause of action under Title VII for individual sex discrimination in pay and raises.