The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law
Managing the Size and Structure of Your Post-Pandemic Workforce
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS on Hold, Retaliation Claims Increase, "Vaccination Ambassadors" - Employment Law This Week®
On August 15, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held in Roberts v. Gestamp West Virginia, LLC, that an employer’s “usual and customary” notice procedures relating to absences extended beyond the company’s...more
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation against employees because they either oppose discriminatory actions (the "Opposition Clause") or because of their participation in an investigation, proceeding, or...more
On March 4, 2021, the New Jersey Appellate Division in Kalim v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a former employee’s wrongful termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims under...more
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed a whistleblower lawsuit last week against L’Oreal USA Inc., the personal care company, and the American subsidiary of L’Oréal, S.A. (“L’Oreal”), over the...more
Under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), also known as “the whistleblowing statute,” it’s illegal to fire an employee if the sole cause for the termination was for refusing to either remain silent about or to...more
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Missouri’s dismissal of appellant’s retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, as well as his state law wrongful discharge claim...more
In a February 12, 2020 decision, Parker v. EnerNOC, Inc., SJC-12703, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the full commission which would have been due to an employee had she not been retaliated against and...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Vaccinations have been widely debated over the past few years, leaving employers unclear about their obligations to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs conflict with them. Recently the U.S. Court...more
Prevention of occupational hazards and management of matters related to safety and the protection of health at work are major concerns for all those involved in labor law. This newsletter reviews five notable court...more
On December 3, 2019, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld the dismissal of a whistleblowing claim filed by an ex-casino employee. In Cook v. Bally's Park Place Inc., the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s...more
Carroll v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 41 Cal. App. 5th 805, 254 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519 (2019) - Summary: Each alleged reduction of monthly disability retirement benefit payments for discriminatory reasons was continuing violation...more
Ferra v. Loews Hollywood Hotel, LLC, 40 Cal. App. 5th 1239, 253 Cal. Rptr. 3d 798 (2019) - Summary: Term “regular rate of compensation” for calculating meal or rest break premium payments is not synonymous with term...more
Under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), employers are prohibited from taking adverse employment actions against employees because they are servicemembers or are obligated to...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
This month's key employment law cases address the enforcement of arbitration agreements. Diaz v. Sohnen Enters., 34 Cal. App. 5th 126, 245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 827 (2019) Summary: When employee continues his or her employment...more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more