SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

Subscribe

Blog Editors

Topics

Archives

Posts in Court Rulings.
By Lauren Daming on September 1, 2017 at 11:40 AM

Word "Overtime" written in white text with a red backrgoundA Texas district court judge struck down the Obama administration’s overtime rule on Aug. 31, 2017, finding that the Department of Labor (DOL) had exceeded its authority in adopting a new salary threshold that would have entitled an estimated 4.2 million workers to overtime compensation.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Lauren Daming on April 13, 2017 at 1:30 PM

Hands protecting group of cardboard cut-out figuresIn late March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit revived a lawsuit brought against Home Depot by the mother of a pregnant employee who was killed by her supervisor at a non-work event. Reversing the district court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit as not stating a viable claim under Illinois law, the Court of Appeals found that Home Depot had a duty to protect its employees from the criminal acts of the supervisor, a known sexual harasser.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Camille Toney on April 5, 2017 at 12:53 PM

Two arrows facing the left and one arrow facing the left.In a landmark decision released April 4, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Title VII protection extends to sexual orientation. The Seventh Circuit has become the first appeals court to rule in such a manner, directly contradicting the recent decisions of the Eleventh and Second Circuits.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Amy Blaisdell, Heather Mehta on January 18, 2017 at 3:40 PM

Supreme Court buildingThe U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 ended a yearlong legal challenge to the enforceability of a forum selection clause in an ERISA-governed benefit plan, when the court denied the plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari. The case is Clause v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 719 (Jan. 17, 2017).

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte on August 8, 2016 at 1:25 PM

“Married on Saturday … fired on Monday”: Seventh Circuit holds Title VII doesn’t protect against sexual orientation biasOn July 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in a precedential decision that existing civil rights laws do not protect against sexual orientation discrimination. Although it was a unanimous decision, the court expressed great displeasure and conflict with the “illogical” legal structure in which “a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Kevin McLaughlin, T. Christopher Bailey on April 11, 2016 at 8:51 AM

A railway company and the business groups that supported its position scored a victory April 5 with the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that obesity is not a covered condition under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling is the latest to support the position that general obesity, without an underlying medical cause, does not warrant protection under the ADA.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Katherine Fechte, Kevin McLaughlin on October 30, 2015 at 4:23 PM

On Oct. 28, 2015, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District held that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited under the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA).

James Pittman worked as a controller at Cook Paper Recycling Corp. and alleged he was harassed and eventually terminated because of his sexual orientation. Among other things, Pittman alleged that the president of Cook Paper called him derogatory names because of his sexual orientation. The trial circuit court dismissed Pittman’s claims last February, and he appealed.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Amy Blaisdell, Lauren Daming, T. Christopher Bailey on March 26, 2015 at 10:43 AM

5388576411_700edd78b2By a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court created a potentially new standard by which employers’ accommodations given or denied to pregnant women will be judged under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).

In Young v. UPS, the plaintiff, Peggy Young, was deemed unable to work her part-time driver position once her physician placed her on a 20-pound lifting restriction. Young was placed on an unpaid leave, and returned to work after the birth of her child; however, Young subsequently filed a lawsuit against UPS alleging the company violated the PDA in refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction and not assigning her to a light duty position. 

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Employment & Labor Practice Group on September 2, 2014 at 11:59 AM

5388576411_700edd78b2In our previous post, we addressed the National Labor Relations Board’s finding that franchisors can be considered joint employers of its franchisee’s employees. The issue of the joint employer relationship continues to be a hot button issue. Just last week, the Missouri Supreme Court announced a new rule of joint employer liability under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL). In Tolentino v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., No. SC93379 (Mo. banc Aug. 19, 2014), the court took a broad view of joint employers – even when criminal activity is involved.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email
By Kathi Chestnut on December 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM

2014cubes-smallWith 2013 at its close, let’s take a peek at two cases currently pending in the United States Supreme Court that will have implications for employers in 2014.

Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.

On February 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals holding that time spent donning and doffing protective gear, as well as time spent traveling from the locker room to work stations, constituted “changing clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) §203(o), thus excluding the activities from being considered work time under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers union. The briefing is complete and the Supreme Court held oral argument on November 4, 2013, so a decision should be forthcoming soon.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ Email