By Wolfmann [CC BY-SA 4.0 ], from Wikimedia Commons
Minarsky v. Susquehanna County (opinion here) is a sexual harassment case. And there’s a lot to discuss. But the biggest takeaway is that any subsequent employer-defendant asserting a Faragher/Ellerth defense in the Third Circuit will find it very difficult to obtain summary judgment on any hostile work environment claim. Continue reading
You know, I don’t think we’ve ever discussed the False Claims Act here at The Employer Handbook.
I don’t think we’ve discussed crowded clown cars either. And, while clowns may pique more interest, alas, this is an employment-law blog. So, I suppose we’ll enjoy our first taste of FCA together.
Kinda tastes like Sour Patch Kids. Continue reading
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
Serendipity may be one of the worst movies of all time. Of this, I am sure.
Then again, I can’t stand John Cusack movies, especially that pretentious piece of one-know-what, High Fidelity. But, I’m not writing today to bash John Cusack. And, I’m not made of stone. Hot Tub Time Machine was pretty freaking good.
Rather, I found it serendipitous that I never really talk about Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Then, you get Tuesday’s post about the similarities between Title IX and Title VII.
And, I’m gonna give you another Title VII / Title IX post today.
Ready, fire, aim.
That’s the approach that many employers take when seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete with a former employee.
You’ll have to pardon the headline.
I’m not nearly as articulate as the Third Circuit was in yesterday’s opinion in Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, using words like “cognizable” and “disproportionate adverse impact.” And, even though the Third Circuit sits in Philadelphia, you won’t find local lingo like “old head” or “jawn” anywhere in the opinion.
Although, I’m pretty sure page 6 has a cheez whiz stain on it.
A few weeks ago, I blogged here about a federal agency — one that rhymes with EEOB — reaching a 7-figure settlement with its workers of alleged Fair Labor Standards Act overtime violations involving comp time.
Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion, in which it addressed another tricky situation involving overtime offsets.
How was your Thanksgiving? Survive Black Friday? (In case you’re wondering about a gift for me, no. Yes. Heck, yes (asking for a friend)).
Me? I almost left my kids on the North Pole as I counted the minutes until Monday. But, overall, I enjoyed a few days off.
Now, it’s back to work. *** Sips mai tai *** So, let’s talk about the Fair Labor Standards Act. As wage and hour claims generally continue to spike, I’m going to get into the weeds a bit and talk about meal breaks. Specifically, when do non-exempt employees get paid for meal breaks?
.jpg)
Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals daintily dabbed the Cheez Whiz from their cheeseteak holes and voted provolone out of Philadelphia took up the issue of whether a company with which a staffing company places temporary workers can be sued for discrimination.
The Employer Handbook Blog
