« Previous | Home | Next »

This term's top 5 employment-law Supreme Court rulings...in haiku

July 7, 2011

Posted In: Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment , Gender , Overtime , Retaliation , USERRA

By Eric B. Meyer on July 7, 2011 7:00 AM | | Comments

bonsai_treephoto © 2007 Zest-pk | more info (via: Wylio)Last month, the Supreme Court handed down - if not the most important - certainly, the highest-profile decision of this term with Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, in addition to this headline-grabber, this term saw four other significant employment-law decisions from the High Court about which employers must take note.

After the jump, I revisit each case...in haiku.

* * *

Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
Decided: January 24, 2011
Fiancée complains.
Thompson fired. Unlawful? Yes.
Zone of interest.
You can read more analysis of this opinion here.

***
Staub v. Proctor Hospital
Decided March 1, 2011
Manager biased.
Decision-maker is not.
Cat's paw means Staub wins.
You can read more analysis of this opinion here.

***

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Decided March 22, 2011
"Filed any complaint"
It include oral complaints?
FLSA, yes.
You can read more analysis of this opinion here.

***

Fox v. Vice
Decided June 6, 2011
Defense fees paid for
frivolous claims, and not for
work on good faith claims
You can read more analysis of this opinion here.

***

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
Decided June 20, 2011)
Female class too big.
Lacked a common injury.
Discrimination?
You can read more analysis of this opinion here.

Categories:

Posted In: Discrimination and Unlawful Harassment , Gender , Overtime , Retaliation , USERRA

Share

Posted by Eric B. Meyer | Comments