Workplace violence has been a focus for both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for several years, as it continues to be one of the leading...more
In a previous blog post, I wrote about the elements of a negligence hiring claim and made recommendations how to avoid liability for your business. A negligence in supervision/retention claim has certain similarities to the...more
Can a New York employer be held liable for economic losses suffered by a party that has no business relationship with the employer based on an employee’s unauthorized fraudulent scheming? This issue was recently presented to...more
In an opinion handed down on April 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed Illinois law and now allows direct and vicarious liability actions against employers. The decision, McQueen v. Green, 2022 IL 126666, now allows...more
Where an employee of a company commits an intentional act, such as a battery or sexual molestation, the managers of that company are often named as defendants on a theory of “negligent supervision”, “negligent retention” or...more
In a decision unsurprising to anyone familiar with what California juries have been up to lately, fast-food titan Jack in the Box was ordered to pay $15.4 million (including a staggering $10 million in punitive damages) last...more
A Los Angeles jury awarded more than $11 million to two former employees who claimed they were sexually harassed and retaliated against for complaining about the harassment. Megan Meadowcroft and Amber Brown, who worked at...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that under California law, there was an unresolved question as to whether a commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance policy covers an...more
Following the June 4, 2018 landmark decision by the California Supreme Court in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, 5 Cal. 5th 216 (2018), the insurance industry is not taking the...more
The California Supreme Court answered the Ninth Circuit’s certified question in Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction. The court rephrased the question presented to it as: “When a third party sues an...more
By statute, California law holds that willful misconduct—where an insured intends to cause someone harm—is not insurable as a matter of public policy. For years, insurance companies have sought to expand this prohibition to...more
Many states and municipalities throughout the country have enacted laws that mandate the removal of criminal conviction history questions from job applications. This so-called “Ban the Box” movement theoretically provides...more
A federal district court in Brooklyn recently held that an employer does not owe a duty to protect patrons from assault unless the attack was “reasonably foreseeable,” specifying that businesses would only be put on such...more
Companies often assume they are not responsible for interactions between employees that happen off-site after hours and that are unrelated to their jobs. However, if a supervisor and a subordinate are involved and the...more
The facts alleged are horrific. A supervisor had a history of screaming obscenities and throwing things at women who worked for him. The employer sent him to anger management classes. His preferred victim was seven months...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a decision that is sure to increase the costs and complexity of litigation, the Texas Supreme Court recently held that a former employee’s common law assault claim was not preempted by the state’s...more