The Employment Brief | Employment Law | Kollman & Saucier, P.A.

Hey NLRB: WTF? That Means “Why The Foolishness?” What Did You Think it Meant?

Darrell VanDeusen

06/08/2015

You may recall a April 7, 2015 blogpost where I discussed the NLRB’s decision that an employee who called his boss a “motherfucker” and wrote on Facebook to “f--k his mother and his entire f--king family!!!!” had engaged in protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) since that “colorful” language was related as a part of a union campaign. Pier Sixty, LLC, 362 NLRB No. 59 (March 31, 2015). Just when you thought it...

Peter Saucier

06/05/2015

Agency Activity, Labor Law

One thing about which unions and employers ordinarily agree is that it is the right and obligation of management to manage. Employers want to manage and unions want to retain the right to claim that the employer did not manage when it should have done so. That makes a recent decision by the NLRB to issue a complaint against a hospital interesting. Armstrong County Memorial Hospital, No. 6-CA-144586, complaint issued 5/27/15. In 2014, licensed...

Peter Saucier

06/03/2015

Employment Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Supreme Court Decisions

Abercrombie & Fitch maintains a dress code for employees known as its Look Policy. Headwear is not allowed under the policy because it is “too informal for Abercrombie’s desired image.” Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf, interviewed for an available position for which she was found to be qualified. Still, Elauf was not hired because the District Manager, who was told by another manager that she thought Elauf’s...

Kollman & Saucier

05/29/2015

Employment Discrimination, Retaliation

Two years ago, in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court heightened the causation standard for employees claiming retaliation based on direct evidence (such as explicitly discriminatory statements made by supervisors) under Title VII. Plaintiffs must prove "but for" causation. What about the situation in which an employee relies solely on circumstantial evidence? Does Nassar’s “but-for” standard apply to...

Kollman & Saucier

05/26/2015

Class Actions, Employment Discrimination, Race Discrimination

Nearly eight years after the lawsuit was first filed, the Fourth Circuit ordered in Brown v. Nucor Corporation that workers claiming systemic racial discrimination in a South Carolina steel plant’s promotion decisions be permitted to proceed as a class action. The Nucor steel plant in South Carolina employs just over 600 workers in six production departments. There were a total of 71 black employees at the plant, but only one black supervisor. In...

Kollman & Saucier

05/22/2015

Disability & Leave

Most employers are well aware of their duty to offer a disabled employee reasonable accommodations upon request, but what’s an employer obligated to do when a proposed accommodation is rejected and the employee demands something different? Nothing, said the court in Noll v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 13-4096 (2d Cir. 5/21/15), so long as the offer of accommodations is “effective.” In this case, Plaintiff Noll, a deaf software engineer,...

Kollman & Saucier

05/19/2015

Firm News

The 2015 edition of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business has once again ranked Kollman & Saucier as a leader in the field of Labor and Employment law. Chambers ranks the top firms and lawyers across the country in a variety of practice areas based on attorney and client interviews and its own database resources. The firm was praised for its "extensive litigation practice and experience in a broad range of matters,...

Kollman & Saucier

05/19/2015

Disability & Leave

Can an employee avoid confrontation with management by requesting it as an accommodation? According to the court in Heath v. Brennan, No. 2:13-cv-00386, (D. Me. 5/14/15), the answer is yes. Plaintiff Heath, a U.S. Postal Service employee, worked as a mail carrier for 11 years before developing tendinitis in both of his elbows. His requests for accommodations were met with negativity from both management and co-workers. For example, one manager...

Kollman & Saucier

05/14/2015

Employment Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation

Sometimes, once is enough. In a just issued en banc decision that overturns established circuit precedent, the Fourth Circuit held that a single workplace incident was sufficiently severe to trigger Title VII's protection. In Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp., 4th Cir. No 13-1473 (May 7, 2015), an African-American hotel worker was fired after she complained that a white employee had called her a “porch monkey” twice within 24 hours....

< 1 … 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 … 129 >

Email Updates

Hey NLRB: WTF? That Means “Why The Foolishness?” What Did You Think it Meant?

NLRB ISSUES COMPLAINT AGAINST HOSPITAL FOR SCHEDULING ITS OWN EMPLOYEES

SUPREME COURT HOLDS WEARING OF RELIGIOUS SCARVES IS REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION

Title VII Retaliation Claims Hinging On Circumstantial Evidence Remain Governed By McDonnell Douglas

Fourth Circuit Orders Racial Class Action Claim at Steel Plant to Proceed

Court Holds Employer Not Required to Grant Disabled Employee His Preferred Accomodation

Chambers USA 2015 Rankings Place K&S Lawyers Among Maryland's Best

Court Orders Postal Service to Trial on Failure to Accommodate Stressed-Out Postal Carrier

New Fourth Circuit Standard: Single Incident Sufficient For Title VII Hostile Workplace Harassment Claim

Email Updates