Risk arising out of the employmentBy Gary PeterlinWorkers’ Compensation Law, October 2013A summary of Autumn Accolade v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.
Civil Rights Act decisions may limit workers’ ability to sue for discriminationBy Tracy DouglasLabor and Employment Law, September 2013In a pair of 5-4 decisions this past June, the Supreme Court limited the definition of supervisor and increased the standard of causation for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The Supreme Court’s Vance v. Ball State University decision—Who is a supervisor for purposes of Title VII?By Carlos S. ArévaloLabor and Employment Law, September 2013On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State University, which held that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
Civil Rights Act decisions may limit workers’ ability to sue for discriminationBy Tracy DouglasWomen and the Law, August 2013In a pair of 5-4 decisions this past June, the Supreme Court limited the definition of supervisor and increased the standard of causation for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Otto May, Jr. v. Chrysler Group LLC: Anatomy of the largest employment discrimination verdict in Illinois historyBy Stephen E. BaloghLabor and Employment Law, August 2013Regardless of how and when this lawsuit finally resolves, it remains that the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has anecdotally informed the district judge and the parties that the verdict entered by the jury of eight people in the courtroom in Rockford, Illinois, on September 2, 2009, stands as the largest award in a single-plaintiff employment discrimination case in any district court in Illinois.
Please check your guns at the door: Employer rights under the Illinois Firearm Concealed Carry ActBy Richard A. RussoLabor and Employment Law, August 2013The Act provides those employers not included on the list of prohibited areas with the flexibility to determine whether or not they wish to permit employees and visitors with concealed carry licenses to carry concealed firearms in the workplace.
Federal successor liability under ERISA and the MPPAABy Donald S. Rothschild & Brian M. DoughertyLabor and Employment Law, July 2013This article will explore the history of ERISA and the MPPAA, how successor liability has evolved under federal law and what needs to be proven in order to hold a successor company liable for withdrawal liability.
Hitchcock v. Angel Corps, Inc.—Pretext caseBy Cassie Korando & Shari R. RhodeLabor and Employment Law, July 2013The Court held that based on Hitchcock’s evidence, a reasonable juror could determine that the reasons given for her termination was pre-textual.
Employer may lawfully change schedule to limit overtimeBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2013The issue on appeal in this case was whether the FLSA limits an employer’s freedom to change an existing workweek designation.
Changes in the IRS Independent Contractor Classification ProgramBy Lisa B. PetkunLabor and Employment Law, May 2013The modified voluntary classification settlement program allows employers to voluntarily reclassify workers who were treated as independent contractors prospectively in exchange for immunity for the past.
Employee lacks ADA claim because of absenteeismBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, May 2013Because there was no evidence permitting a conclusion that the plaintiff was a qualified individual for ADA purposes, the district court correctly entered summary judgment for the defendant on her ADA claim.
Social media and employer liability under the NLRABy Michael K. ChropowiczLabor and Employment Law, March 2013Over the past year, the National Labor Relations Board has provided some degree of guidance on application of the National Labor Relations Act to employer social media policies. This brief article illustrates the Board’s position, giving management and their counsel notice of the types of policies that will be found unlawful.
I-9 Compliance: Information for employersBy Scott D. PollockInternational and Immigration Law, September 2012Common questions and answers for employers dealing with Form I-9.
Plaintiff’s challenge to employer’s light duty policy failsBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2012Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, 656 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2011), involved claims of gender discrimination under Title VII, The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, (“PDA”), disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and retaliation.
Accusing employee of “Playing the race card” keeps his case aliveBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, March 2012Employee's history of complaints and Plant Manager's “race card” statements were deemed enough to allow employee to survive summary judgment on his retaliation claim. The court of appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings in Burnell v. Gates Rubber Co.
Drafting enforceable restrictions on recruiting employeesBy Arthur SternbergLabor and Employment Law, March 2012To be enforceable, contractual restrictions on soliciting or hiring an employer’s personnel should avoid a blanket prohibition on recruiting or hiring all employees. This applies not only to employment-related agreements, but also to business-to-business agreements, such as confidentiality and service agreements. This article examines what is an overbroad recruitment restriction under Illinois law and how to narrow them.