Announcing Kollman, Saucier & Jackson, P.A. and our relocation to Hunt Valley Read More
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

The Supreme Court Speaks: Title VII "Supervisors" Must Have The Power To Implement Tangible Employment Actions

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/28/2013
Employer Liability, Employment Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions
In Vance v. Ball State University, in a 5-4 decision issued June 24, 2013, on the same day and by the same majority that decided the Nassar case limiting Title VII retaliation claims to “but for” violations, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employers another victory by defining, precisely and narrowly, who is a “supervisor” for liability purposes in cases of Title VII unlawful harassment. Under Title VII, employer liability for harassment...
read more

Supreme Court Strikes Down Portion Of Defense Of Marriage Act

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/28/2013
Legal Developments, Supreme Court Decisions
In an important and far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, 570 U.S. ____ (June 26, 2013).  Section III of DOMA defined marriage, for federal purposes, as only between a man and woman.  By striking down this provision, and recognizing the respective states’ definitions of marriage, the Supreme Court opened the door to a panoply of federal...
read more

Race Based Admissions Program Sent Back To Lower Courts

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/28/2013
Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court recently made it a bit more difficult for state universities to utilize race as one of the factors in their undergraduate admission processes. In Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin, et al., No. 11-345, decided June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively punted on the broader issue of whether using race as one of many factors is permissible under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution.  Instead,...
read more

What's Old is New: Alcohol in the Workplace

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/27/2013
Legal Developments
During the go-go days of the dot-com boom, I marveled at some of the perks my clients were providing to employees.  Video games and foosball tables; on-site auto detailing; and the biggest shocker to me: open bars at work.  One client used the phrase "going to the opera" to describe its regular company-sponsored outings to the local watering holes. But then came the dot-com crash, and I thought these days were forever behind me. As a management...
read more

NLRB Judge Strikes Down Confidentiality Policy

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/12/2013
Labor Law
Over the past year, we’ve seen a lot of NLRB rulings and guidance limiting the rights of employers to regulate non-union employees. While social media rulings have drawn most of the attention, the Board has also tried to limit employers’ rights to issue work rules, maintain the confidentiality of workplace investigations, and  make employees aware of the at-will nature of their employment relationship.  On June 4, 2013, an NLRB Administrative...
read more

10th Circuit Affirms SOX Whistleblower Ruling

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/08/2013
Retaliation, Whistleblowers
On June 4, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed a ruling by the United States Department of Labor's Administrative  Review Board and held that Lockheed Martin violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) by constructively discharging an employee after she complained about an executive who allegedly had sexual affairs with soldiers she met through the company's pen-pal program.  Lockheed Martin Corp. v. ARB, 10th Cir...
read more

Employee Who Refused To Cooperate In Employer’s Investigation Cannot Recover For Sexual Harassment

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
06/05/2013
Sexual Harassment
The Fourth Circuit recently dismissed the sexual harassment claim of an employee who brought a vague complaint of “horrible” conduct to her human resources department, but refused to cooperate in her employer’s efforts to investigate.  Crockett v. Mission Hosp. Inc., No. 12-1910 (4th Cir. May 30, 2013). Stephanie Crockett worked for Mission Hospital as a radiologic technologist.  Her supervisor, Harry Kemp, issued her a final warning for...
read more

Maryland Employers Required To Provide “Light Duty” And Other Reasonable Accommodations For Pregnant Temporarily Disabled Employees

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
05/23/2013
Disability & Leave, Legislative Developments, Pregnancy Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodations/Undue Burden, State Law
One of the biggest changes coming to Maryland employers with 15 or more employees will last more than 9 months.   Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law the requirement that employers provide to pregnant employees certain reasonable accommodations beyond those presently required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).  Under the Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities Due to Pregnancy Act,...
read more

Have A Coke And A Smile . . . And A Fitness For Duty Evaluation

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
05/22/2013
Disability & Leave, Fitness For Duty Evaluations
In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Coca-Cola Company acted lawfully when it required an employee to undergo a “fitness for duty” evaluation where the inquiry was both job-related and consistent with business necessity.  Owusu-Ansah v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 11-13663 (11th Cir. May 8, 2013) Franklin Owusu-Ansah began working for Coca-Cola in 1999 at the company’s Dunwoody, Georgia call center.  Owusu-Ansah performed...
read more

Maryland Governor Signs New Law to Enforce Wage Claims

Kollman, Saucier, & Jackson
05/21/2013
Legal Developments, Legislative Developments, State Law, Wage & Hour
Last week, Maryland Gov. O'Malley signed into law the "Lien for Unpaid Wages Act." This new law, SB 758, allows employees to file a lien against their employer’s real or personal property for unpaid wages allegedly due them. Once the employee files a lien, the employer must file a complaint setting forth its defenses in the Circuit Court where the employer's property is located within 30 days. If the employer fails to do so, the employee will have...
read more
Email Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.