In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that statistical or representative evidence could be used by a class of employees to prove liability for an employer’s failure to pay them for donning and doffing protective gear in violation of
As has been the case since 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission again reported that retaliation remained the most frequently filed discrimination charge in fiscal year 2015. With the continued upward trend of these claims, the EEOC has issued new proposed guidance which broadly
In the latest case to challenge elements of the Affordable Care Act (“Act”), the United States Supreme Court in a six-to-three vote, ruled on June 25, 2015 in King v. Burwell that premium subsidies will remain available in 36 states in which the federal government has primary responsibility for running health insurance exchanges.
The legal
Last month, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Tibble v. Edison International that retirement plan fiduciaries have an ongoing duty to monitor plan investments. The ruling came in a case involving challenges to plan investment decisions made more than six years before suit was filed. The lower courts had ruled some claims were
The US Supreme Court on June 1, 2015 decided the highly publicized case of EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (“Abercrombie”). The case involved a job applicant, Samantha Elauf, who went to an interview at the popular retail store wearing a hijab or
The US Supreme Court on March 25, 2015 decided the case of Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.(UPS). The issue in the case was whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), requires an employer which provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations
In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of whether time the employer requires an employee to do something is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Integrity Staffing required its warehouse workers whose job it was to retrieve inventory and package it for shipment to undergo an antitheft security screening before leaving the warehouse each day. During the screening, employees removed items such as wallets, keys, and belts and passed through metal detectors. Employees filed suit for unpaid wages arguing that the time spent waiting for and being screened was compensable, in part because they were required by the employer to do so.
Continue Reading Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, et. al: US Supreme Court Reverses Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Warehouse Workers’ Time spent in Post-Shift Security Screen Not Compensable
The US Supreme Court recently found President Obama lacked the authority to make 3 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012. It held the appointments invalid because the Senate was not in a “recess” at the time but rather was holding pro forma sessions every three days for weeks in a
DOMA’s defeat in the United States v. Windsor continues to have a ripple effect when it comes to other federal 
regulations. On June 20, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule that would extend the protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to all eligible employees in legally-recognized same-sex marriages, regardless of where the employees live. The proposal is in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act’s provision that limited “marriage” to opposite-sex unions and “spouse” to individuals of the opposite-sex who are married for purposes of federal law. DOL’s proposed change would expand the FMLA’s definition of “spouse” so that it applies to an employee legally married in any state (the so-called “state of celebration” rule), as opposed to the state in which the employee resides (“state of residence” rule).
Continue Reading DOL Proposes Rule Aimed At Expanding FMLA Coverage for Same-Sex Couples
The US Supreme Court in the case of Vance v. Ball State University issued on June 24, 2013 decided the question of who qualifies as a “supervisor” in a Title VII claim of harassment based on race. The decision has been anxiously awaited because it impacts the standard by which an employer’s liability will be