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 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

Photo Credit: Daniel Logo via Flickr (CC by 2.0)

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

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

Employer liability for harassment in the workplace is before the U.S. Supreme Court.  On November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Vance v. Ball State University.  At issue is the scope of the “Supervisor” Liability Rule in discrimination cases under Title VII.  This is a long awaited case on who qualifies as