News
[05/09]
Diageo brews Irish Guinness overhaul
[05/09]
GM to pay up to $200M to help end American Axle strike
[05/08]
Jobless claims post sharp decline
[05/08]
Dan Rather files amended lawsuit against CBS over his firing
[05/08]
Congressman seeks probe of Utah mine collapse
More...
Articles
Implied Employment Contract
An employment contract can be a traditional written agreement, but may also be implied from verbal statements by the employer, memoranda, handbooks, or policies adopted during the employee's employment.
More...
What is Sexual Harassment?
Sexual harassment is a serious problem in the American workplace. No one comes out a winner. The victimized employees experiences the crushing emotional injuries associated with sexual harassment, sometimes over a period of years, loses productivity and sometimes loses a job or opportunities. An alleged harasser may feel the sting of the laws and employer policies prohibiting sexual harassment, sometimes over behavior that they believed was not inappropriate. They may also lose productivity or be terminated from their employment. Employers lose productivity of the victim employee and, when it leads to the termination of the employee or the harasser, a trained and productive employee or employees. Employers will also lose productivity of supervisors and other employees who are caught up in the legal proceedings.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[05/09]
Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Mall's petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board order, which held that it was a violation of a party's free speech rights under the California Constitution to require a permit applicant to agree not to urge consumers to boycott any of the mall's tenants as a condition to obtaining a permit to engage in expressive activities at the mall, is denied where petitioner failed to raise its constitutional arguments before the circuit court in prior proceedings, and waited until it petitioned the California Supreme Court for a rehearing.
[05/09]
McCann v. Tillman
In a Title VII suit against an employer alleging claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) the record demonstrated that employee's claims of favorable disparate treatment of similarly situated white employees were inapposite to establish a prima facie case of discrimination; 2) employee failed to meet the burden of showing that the reasons for her employer's actions were actually a pretext for retaliatory conduct; and 3) despite employee's allegations of exposure to offensive derogatory language at work, the evidence presented was insufficient to support a claim of hostile work environment.
[05/08]
U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.
[05/08]
Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.
[04/29]
Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.
More...
|
