Showing 16 posts from April 2012.

Citing Employee’s Receipt of SSDI Benefits, the Fourth Circuit Rejects the EEOC’s ADA Action Against Medical Center

On April 17, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered the circumstances under which an employee’s ADA claim and receipt of SSDI benefits can co-exist. More ›

Employee Permitted to Combine two Separate Health Issues into one “Serious Medical Condition” Under FMLA

A federal district court in Minnesota has ruled that multiple medical conditions can be combined into a single "serious medical condition" for purposes of the FMLA as long as the two conditions are "temporarily linked" and affect "the same organ system." More ›

EEOC Issues Guidance on Employers’ use of Arrest and Conviction Records

When can an employer conduct a criminal background check on an applicant or existing employee?   More ›

EEOC: Discrimination Based on Gender Identity Violates Title VII

The EEOC issued its decision in Macy v. Holder  yesterday in which it held that an employer who discriminates against an applicant or an employee on the basis of gender identity violates Title VII's prohibitions against sex discrimination.  

CA Court Finds Arbitration Agreement with Modification Provisions to be Illusory

The California Court of Appeals recently found an employer's arbitration agreement to be "illusory" because it contained a modification provision which stated that the employer had the right to amend, modify, or revoke the arbitration contract on 30 days' written notice, and at the end of the 30-day period, a contract change applies to any claim that has not been filed with the American Arbitration Association. More ›

Ninth Circuit Finds “Attendance” to be Essential Function of Nurse’s Job

The Ninth Circuit recently determined that for a neo-natal intensive care unit nurse, attendance is an essential function of the job. The hospital at which the nurse worked had an attendance policy wherein employees could take up to five unplanned absences during a rolling twelve-month period, and unplanned absences related to family medical leave . . . jury duty, bereavement leave and other approved bases are not counted towards this limit, and each absence, however long, counts as only one occurrence. More ›

D.C. Circuit Court also Rules on NLRB Posting Requirement

Yesterday we reported to you that the South Carolina District Court struck down the NLRB's posting rule which would have been effective as of April 30, 2012. Just this morning, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (where a similar NLRB-challenge was pending) issued an injunction enjoining the posting requirement pending the outcome of an appeal.   More ›

South Carolina Court Strikes down NLRB Posting Rule

Up until December, 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), unlike most federal labor agencies, did not require employers to post a general notice of employee rights in the workplace. That changed, however, upon issuance of a proposed rule wherein all employees subject to the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) would be required to post notices which informed employees of their rights under the NLRA. The final rule was ultimately published in August, 2011, and the requirements were set to take effect on April 30, 2012. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce sought an injunction to prevent the implementation and enforcement of the rule. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina agreed with the Chambers, finding that the Board, in promulgating the final rule, exceeded its authority in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. You can read the decision here.   More ›

Updated: Supreme Court to hear Arguments on Outside Salesperson Exemption

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether GlaxoSmithKline PLC's offsite and travelling drug sales representatives are entitled to overtime pay. In the past, these representatives have been deemed "exempt" as outside salespeople and not eligible for overtime. Specifically, the Court is presently considering: More ›

Georgia Court Evaluates Executive Exemption Under FLSA

When is a store manager truly a manager, and not just a lead hourly employee, for purposes of the executive exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act? Employers recently received some positive guidance from the South Carolina district court in Gooden v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 3:10-cv-1059, Dkt. 60, (U.S.D.C. So. Car. Ap. 3, 2012) and Thomas v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 3:10-cv-1061, Dkt. 59, (U.S.D.C. So. Car. Ap. 3, 2012). More ›