News

[02/03] AP Interview: Main says mines can't be complacent
[02/03] Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst
[02/02] AstraZeneca to cut 7,300 jobs as outlook darkens
[02/02] Fewer seek unemployment aid as job market improves
[02/02] Worker productivity growth slowed in 4th quarter
[02/02] Ousted superintendent's unemployment bid denied
[02/02] Main says violations at US coal mines down in 2011
[02/01] Ind. poised for right-to-work era; protest planned
[02/01] Aussie bosses thank employees with $16M after sale
[01/31] Probe: Air Force punished Dover whistleblowers

More...

Articles

Employee Retirement Income Security Act

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974. The act does not require that an employer offer any particular benefits to employees, but instead governs how employee benefit and welfare programs, once offered by an employer, must be managed. In essence, an employer who decides to provide employees with "funded" benefits or who requires contributions from employees assumes a host of new responsibilities under the law. ERISA is jointly administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service, and applies to pension plans, health insurance, disability benefits, death benefits, pre-paid legal services, vacation benefits, day care centers, scholarship funds, apprenticeships, and training benefits, where offered by an employer.

More...

What Laws Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination?

Private employers seeking to learn more about their obligations to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation should look to the law of their specific jurisdictions. There are few federal legal protections against this type of employment discrimination.

More...

Case Summaries

[02/03] Lawson v. FMR, LLC
In two separate but related cases under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, alleging unlawful retaliation by employers that are private companies that act under contract as advisers to and managers of mutual funds organized under the Investment Company Act of 1940, the district court's denial of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim is reversed, as the whistleblower protection afforded by section 806(a) of the Act applies only to the employees of public companies as defined in the Act, and not to an employee of a contractor or subcontractor of a public company reporting suspected violations relating to fraud against shareholders of the public company.

[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.

[02/02] Lore v. City of Syracuse
In a case alleging illegal retaliation against a city police officer under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) because of her complaints of gender discrimination, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where the city's arguments regarding the availability of reputation damages, evidentiary and instructional errors, and excessive damages for emotional distress presented no basis for disturbing the judgment; and 2) vacated in part where there was merit in plaintiff's contentions regarding the liability of the city's corporation counsel, and the district court erred in dismissing her principal gender discrimination claims under the HRL on the basis that she had suffered no materially adverse employment action.

[02/02] Lazaro v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
On appeal of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board that denied the plaintiff's claim for relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act, the order is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the Board had jurisdiction to determine whether the Veterans Administration properly afforded the plaintiff the right to compete for the job and whether it properly determined that the plaintiff was not qualified for the position; and 2) the Board committed legal error by concluding that the administrative judge properly determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim and that the administrative judge's analysis was not erroneous.

More...