Casino’s policies violate National Labor Relations ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2004In Double Eagle Hotel and Casino, 341 NLRB No. 17 (2004), a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") found that several of the casino's policies violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").
No earrings for men: Is that a problem?By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2004In Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800 (2003), the Iowa Supreme Court decided the employer did not violate Federal or Iowa law by barring male employees from wearing earrings.
Restrictive covenant / covenant not to compete updateBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2004The courts continue to churn out cases interpreting restrictive covenants in the employment context. An analysis of some recent cases follows.
The plaintiff’s depositionBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2004There are a number of things that defense counsel may hope to accomplish in the plaintiff's deposition. Counsel may want to both fully understand and seek to narrow the plaintiff's claims.
Illinois Whistleblower Act becomes effective January 1, 2004By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2003This summer, the Illinois legislature passed the Whistleblower Act. The Act applies to employers in Illinois, including individuals, sole proprietorships, partnerships, firms, corporations, associations and any other entity having one or more employees in Illinois
Minimum wage changesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2003The Illinois minimum wage rate increases to $5.50 per hour on January 1, 2004. It next rises to $6.50 per hour January 1, 2005.
New leave rights for victims of domestic violenceBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2003The Illinois Victims Economic Security and Safety Act ("VESSA") became effective August 25, 2003. VESSA has similarities to both the Family and Medical Leave Act as well as the Americans With Disabilities Act.
High court sets limits on punitive damagesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2003On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court decided a significant case which seems to, for the first time, establish some constitutional limits on awards of punitive damages.
Your employee files for bankruptcy—Can you terminate employment?By Michael R. Lied & Tyler D. PetersenCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, May 2003Your bank operates in a small town, maybe even in a town that is not so small. One of your lending officers files for bankruptcy, and the filing is reported in the newspaper.
Executive loses stock options by working for competitorBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, April 2003Michael Tatom worked as Vice-President of Operations in the Custom Business Services unit of Ameritech Information Systems.
Unforeseeable business circumstance excuses plant closing without WARN noticeBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, April 2003In Watson et al. v. Michigan Industrial Holdings, Inc. et al., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23889 (6th Cir. 2002), Michigan Industrial Holdings, Inc. (MIHI) provided new and aftermarket forgings for Dana Corporation
Court finds assignment to harder job is not an adverse employment actionBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2003In White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, 310 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2002), White was a track maintenance worker who primarily operated a fork lift. White complained the employer treated her differently because of her sex and said her foreman had twice made inappropriate remarks
Court refuses to limit jury’s damages award on disabilities claimBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2003In Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23953 (3rd Cir. 2002), Gagliardo worked as a customer service representative for Connaught Laboratories, Inc., (CLI).
Employer sues union for defamation related to picketingBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, December 2002In Lowe Excavating Co. v. International Union of Operating Engineer's Local 150, 327 Ill. App. 3d 711 (2d Dist. 2002), the union picketed a non-union employer with signs stating:
Employer’s state law claims relating to labor dispute barred by filing of unfair labor practice chargeBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, December 2002In Overnite Transportation Co. v. International Brotherhood Teamsters, et al, _____ Ill. App. 3d _____, 773 N.E.2d 26, 265 Ill. Dec. 664 (1st Dist. 2002), the Complaint alleged that defendants conspired to commit various tortuous and criminal acts to force the employer to accept the union representation as well as a union contract.
Appellate Court does the unusual—reverses arbitratorBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2002Arbitration awards are fairly sacred, because the parties agree to let an arbitrator settle their dispute. However, in Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Teamsters, 280 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2002), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's affirmance of an arbitrator's decision in favor of Teamsters Local 744.
Impaired sleep leading to claimed inability to work overtime is not a disabilityBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2002In Boerst v. General Mills Operations, Inc., 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 813 (6th Cir. 2002), the employee claimed he suffered from anxiety, fatigue, difficulty sleeping and inability to concentrate.
Court decides NLRB awarded too much back pay to union saltBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2002Winston Cox was a full-time union organizer for the IBEW. He was refused employment with a non-union contractor and this was found to be an unfair labor practice.
Supreme Court clarifies Americans With Disabilities ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2002A Toyota Motor Company employee claimed to be disabled from performing assembly line duties by virtue of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and other impairments.
Seventh Circuit clarifies standards for the grant or denial of summary judgment in retaliation casesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, May 2002In Stone v. City of Indianapolis Public Utilities Division, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 2523 (7th Cir. 2002), the court of appeals set forth standards for the grant or denial of summary judgment in cases alleging retaliation for filing a discrimination charge or engaging in some other protected activity.
Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review partial dismissal of claim under Human Rights ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2001In Matson v. Department of Human Rights, 255 Ill. Dec. 888, 750 N.E.2d 1273 (2d Dist. 2001), a case of first impression, the appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review a determination of the Department of Human Rights' Chief Counsel affirming partial dismissal of a handicap discrimination claim.
Employer bears burden of proving supervisory status in NLRB proceedingBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2001A labor law issue which comes up with some frequency is whether certain individuals are employees--and therefore entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act, or supervisors, who are usually excluded from such protection.
Expert witnesses cannot testify to standard of conduct in a fiduciary duty caseBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2001LID Associates, et al. v. Charles F. Dolan, et al., 2001 Ill. App. LEXIS 683 (1st Dist. Aug. 30, 2001), involved claims by a number of limited partner investors in Cablevision of Chicago against general partner, Charles F. Dolen and Cablevisions Systems Services Corporation for breach of fiduciary duty involving three financing transactions.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.