- [04/11] Arbitrator: Mankato university wrong to fire coach
- [04/11] At a glance: How to avoid tax refund fraud
- [04/09] Ohio panel: College athletes aren't employees
- [04/09] GM auto workers vote to allow strike in Kentucky
- [04/09] Big win but a long road ahead for college union
- [04/03] In Michigan, Obama presses for higher minimum wage
- [04/02] Union question looms as Northwestern practices
- [04/02] Lufthansa cancels 900 flights due to strike
- [04/02] College athletes take labor cause to Capitol Hill
- [03/31] Poverty, income levels drive minimum wage debate
- [04/22] Texas search group sues FAA over drone use
- [04/22] New Jersey school sued over 'under God' in pledge
- [04/22] Lawsuit challenging Ga. gay marriage ban filed
- [04/18] Judge asks pointed questions in gay marriage case
- [04/17] Oklahoma gay-marriage case before US appeals court
- [04/15] First women move to Army platoon artillery jobs
- [04/14] Judge set to issue key Ohio gay marriage ruling
- [04/14] Tribe banks on syrup for sweet relief from poverty
- [04/11] Virginia AG files brief supporting gay marriage
- [04/11] Judge says flashing headlights is free speech
Labor & Employment Law
[04/18] Perez v. USDC (State of Washington Department of Social and Health Servs.)
In the US Department of Labor Secretary's action against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the district court's order compelling the Secretary's response to interrogatories, which would disclose the identities of employees who supported the FLSA claims, is vacated and a writ of mandamus issued to protect these identities because: 1) the timing of employees' statements did not affect their status as informants; and 2) knowledge of their identities would not significantly aid DSHS.
[04/18] Newman v. Advanced Technology
Summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer in plaintiffs' action claiming overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act is reversed and remanded, where defendant's per diem formula was impermissibly "based upon and thus varied with the number of hours worked" per week.
[04/16] Gonzalez-Rios v. Hewlett Packard PR Co.
Dismissal of a former employee's lawsuit seeking disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is affirmed where plaintiff has committed numerous procedural errors, thwarting intelligent review.
[04/16] Diaz-Carrasquillo v. Garcia-Padilla
In an interlocutory appeal from a preliminary injunction issued in favor of plaintiff, who sued the Governor of Puerto Rico and other officials for attempting to oust him from his job as the Advocate for Persons with Disabilities in August 2013, the injunction is reversed where it was improvidently granted, as plaintiff job was not abolished by a legislative act.
[04/15] White v. County of Los Angeles
In a suit involving the fitness of an employee returning from Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), judgment in favor of the employee is reversed, where if the employer is not satisfied with the employee’s health care provider’s certification that the employee is able to resume work, the employer may restore the employee to work, but then seek its own evaluation of the employee’s fitness for duty at its own expense.
[04/14] Global Hawk Ins. Co. v. Le
In an suit brought by a truck driver who sustained injuries in an accident during a cross-country trip, summary judgment in favor of employer's insurance carrier are reversed where the trial court erroneously ignored pertinent facts in the case and held that the definition of employee in certain federal regulations, which are not mentioned in the insurance policy, controlled.
[04/11] Rivera-Diaz v. Humana Health Plans of Puerto Rico
Dismissal of plaintiff's action against defendant-former employer alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff failed to sue on his discrimination claim within the specified ninety-day period after he received his right to sue letter from the EEOC; and 2) plaintiff lodged his retaliation claim with the EEOC after the 180 day deadline.
[04/09] Cunningham v. US
In an action for breach of contract, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant-former employer, the government, disclosed details about him to another employer and thereby violated a confidentiality provision of a settlement agreement, the Court of Federal Claims' decision that res judicata barred his claim because plaintiff declined the recission and reinstatement remedies offered by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the Claims Court possessed jurisdiction under the Tucker Act; but 2) because jurisdictional limits on the MSPB's remedial authority did not permit plaintiff to seek monetary damages for defendant's breach of contract, the MSPB's prior judgment of dismissal does not preclude his suit in the Claims Court.
[04/08] Bartlett v. Department of the Treasury
Dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against defendant-former employer, alleging that she had been constructively discharged in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff failed to lodge her administrative complaint within forty-five days of the incident, as dictated by regulation; and 2) plaintiff has not demonstrated that her circumstances warrant equitable tolling.
[04/08] Palladino v. CNY Centro, Inc.
Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-union member seeking damages from defendant-union for breach of the duty of fair representation is affirmed, where the Appellate Division properly relied on Martin v Curran (303 NY 276 ) in determining that dismissal was proper because the complaint failed to allege that defendant-union's conduct was ratified by "every single member" of the association.
[04/08] Subway Surface Supervisors Association v. New York City Transit Authority
In an action brought by plaintiff-labor union against defendant-transit authority alleging that its Station Supervisor Level One members were being paid a lower base salary than their claimed counterparts, Station Supervisor Level Two, for the same type of work, the lower court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss is reversed, where: 1) Civil Service law section 115 states a policy only and does not confer a private right of action; and 2) the equal protection claims must be dismissed, because plaintiff freely negotiated and executed the collective bargaining agreement that contained lower wage rates for plaintiff's members and, to the extent an equal protection claim can be raised, it must be asserted by the employees subjected to the alleged discriminatory conduct.
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.