Originally, I was toying with titling this post, “What Employers Can Learn From Military Nurses Who Pose Newborns Dancing to 50 Cent, Give Them The Finger, And Then Snap A Video And Photo Captioned, ‘How I currently feel about these mini Satans.’”
If an employer violates the Fair Labor Standards Act, like by not paying overtime, the plaintiff(s) can generally recover two years of unpaid overtime for the two years preceding the lawsuit. Those plaintiffs may also recover liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime.
So, if an employer owes $100 in overtime, the total bill with liquidated damages would be $200.
However, if the employer willfully violates the FLSA, then the damages increase. That’s because the lookback period for a willful violation becomes three years.
But, what makes a violation willful? Yesterday, the Third Circuit helped answer that question. Continue reading
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission believes that discrimination based on LGBT status amounts to sex discrimination. Sex discrimination is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
However, some recent comments imply that the EEOC’s position on LGBT rights at work may change.
Like, how about a full 180? Continue reading
Proving once again that freedom of speech is a big, fat myth when it comes to keeping one’s job, an Ohio firefighter has been suspended after he posted on Facebook about how he would rather save a dog than a million n*****s.
According to the Ariel Zilber at The Daily Mail (here), the Franklin Township Fire Department informed Tyler Roysdon that was suspended indefinitely for his inflammatory Facebook post. Amy Feinstein at Inquisitr reports (here) that the FD cannot terminate Ms. Roysdon. That’s up to the Board of Trustees, which is scheduled to hold a disciplinary hearing later this month.
Ms. Zilbert’s report indicates that Mr. Roysdon’s chances at reinstatement are slim and none:
I’m not sure what kind of evidence a federal jury was expecting when it concluded that two plaintiff-intervenors (i.e., the alleged victims of sexual harassment on whose behalf the EEOC pursued claims) did not do enough to notify the employer-defendant about possible harassment in the workplace.
And neither did a federal judge when he concluded that a federal jury plainly overlooked evidence that the employer-defendant should have known about possible sexual harassment.