News

[09/03] Unemployment rate rises as labor force expands
[09/03] Tractor upgrades reduce farm deaths from rollovers
[09/03] Companies add 67K workers, but jobless rate rises
[09/03] Obama to comment Friday on jobless report
[09/02] Unemployment claims drop for second straight week
[08/26] Army ending its GED program for aspiring soldiers
[08/26] New jobless claims drop for first time in 4 weeks
[08/25] Feds to release report on Colo. fire that killed 5
[08/25] Bill in Calif. would help farmworkers form unions
[08/20] Jobless rate drops in 18 states, rises in 14

More...

Articles

Whistleblowers

An employer generally may not take an adverse action against an employee (such as by firing, demotion, or suspension) because the employee reported a suspected violation of the law or other misconduct by the employer. Such employees are popularly known as "whistleblowers," and are protected by a number of federal laws.

More...

What is National Origin Discrimination?

National origin discrimination occurs when an individual is denied equal employment opportunities because of their ethnicity, their ancestor's ethnicity, their appearance, their accent or their perceived ethnic background. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their national origin in employment decisions, including hiring, termination, promotions, transfers, trainings, lay-offs and assignments.

More...

Case Summaries

[09/03] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Prospect Airport Servs., Inc.
In a sexual harassment case in which a male employee was the victim of a female co-worker, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether: 1) plaintiff was subjected to "verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature"; 2) such conduct was unwelcome; 3) the pervasiveness and the inadequate response by the employer established a jury question of whether a co-worker's overtures led to an abusive environment; 4) defendant's actions were not enough to establish an affirmative defense.

[09/03] Goodman v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against her former employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has offered insufficient evidence to establish the key elements of her retaliation and discrimination claims; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.

[09/03] Brooks v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
In plaintiff's suit against Union Pacific Railroad Company under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA), to recover damages for back injuries that he allegedly suffered while working as a machinist at defendant's locomotive repair shop, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff has failed to establish causation, negligence or foreseeability; and 2) the district court properly excluded plaintiff's medical expert's causation opinion for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2).

[09/03] Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc.
In plaintiff's suit against his former employer claiming discrimination because of his race and retaliation under Title VII, jury's verdict for plaintiff on a retaliation claim is reversed and remanded as the employer was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence to find an actual or constructive discharge.

More...