News & Analysis as of

ERISA Litigation Review

The courts have been busy in 2014, addressing a variety of issues in the employee benefits field in decisions that impact everyone from union travelers to ESOP fiduciaries. This advisory summarizes a selection of the 2014...more

Trial Judge Concludes The Deepwater Horizon Spill Caused By BP’s Gross Negligence And Willful Misconduct

On September 4, 2014 the federal district judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill issued long-awaited rulings as to liability. The court concluded that BP is subject to...more

Virginia’s Privity of Contract Defense Continues to Protect Defendants in Economic Loss Cases

I am often told by clients that they are protected from a lawsuit because they have a corporation. The advice I usually give them is that while the corporate shield is strong it does not protect them if they are negligent...more

First Circuit Court of Appeals Holds That Employer Can be Found Liable Under Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Negligence Theory for...

In a case of first impression, the First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer can be held liable under Title VII for quid pro quo sexual harassment based on the discriminatory actions of a non-supervisory...more

Employment Law Update - Danger Ahead: Employer Liability For Third-Party Harassment

On April 29, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that employers can be liable for third-party harassment under a negligence standard. In doing so, the court joined other circuits in establishing that employers can...more

Employer Can Be Liable for Negligently Terminating an Employee Based on Co-Worker’s Discriminatory Conduct

On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in Velazquez-Perez v. Developers Diversified Realty Corp. that an employer may be liable under Title VII for negligently terminating an employee. Although...more

eTrends – Fourth Circuit Adopts Negligence Standard for Third-Party Harassment Claims

When is an employer liable for workplace harassment of its employees by a customer, vendor or other third-party? In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., decided on April 29, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth...more

HR as Caesar’s Wife

An employee rejects a co-worker’s proposal of a physical relationship. The co-worker gets him fired. Is the employer liable for sex discrimination? This is different from earlier cat’s paw cases because the person who caused...more

Harassment-free workplace: Potential harassers not limited to employees

Employers are well aware of their obligation to act promptly to stop harassment or discriminatory behavior in the workplace when it is committed by employees. But this obligation can be more extensive. Employers are required...more

Fourth Circuit Rules that Employers Can be Liable for Third Party Harassment of Their Employees

In Freeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., 2014 WL 1678422 (4th Cir. April 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that an employer can be liable for third party harassment of its employees. The court...more

Failure Is Not An Option

When it comes to a dealership’s legal liability for employment-related problems, the basis of the liability generally falls into two categories – actions the dealership took and those it failed to take. When it comes to big...more

Hercules and the Lernaean Hydra: The Hercules Removal Jurisprudence Sprouts Yet Another Head

In yet another twist in the tortured labors of the Hercules jurisprudence regarding removal of general maritime law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1441(a), the Eastern District of Louisiana has generated a new, divergent “head” on...more

Employer Liability for Car Accidents

You just got in a car accident and the driver of the other automobile (who was at fault) was driving a company car or in his own vehicle but on the clock at work. Who's liable for your damages: the other driver and/or his...more

Defending Nonsubscriber Lifting Injuries – Part IX – “Foreseeability”

In addition to proving “but for” (a.k.a., cause-in-fact) causation, the plaintiff must also prove as a separate element of causation that the injury was foreseeable to the defendant. In general, to prove foreseeability, the...more

California Employment Law Notes - November 2013

Employer Was Entitled To "Substantial Motivating Factor" Jury Instruction - Alamo v. Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp., 219 Cal. App. 4th 466 (2013) - In one of the first appellate opinions to consider the new jury...more

Employment Newsletter - October 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Limits Who Qualifies as a “Supervisor” under Title VII

On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Vance v. Ball State University, 133 S.Ct. 2434 (2013), issued one of the most important decisions on workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act since it...more

Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Definition Of Supervisor Under Title VII

The Supreme Court has ruled in Vance v. Ball State University that the authority to take tangible employment actions is the defining characteristic of a supervisor, and that without such authority an employee is not a...more

Riddell Found Negligent In Relation To Football Player's Injuries

One 17-year-old high school student had a life not that different from many other high school football players in Alabama. However, this football player's end is far more tragic than most, but sadly no longer becoming a rare...more

Supreme Court of Virginia Grants Cert in Respondeat Superior Case

Hat tip to the Virginia Lawyers Weekly for covering a story about a recent case that may have a far-reaching impact on the doctrine of respondeat superior in Virginia. The Supreme Court of Virginia has granted certiorari in a...more

19 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1