Changes in the IRS Independent Contractor Classification ProgramBy Lisa B. PetkunMay 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.
DC Circuit strikes down NLRB notice ruleBy Gerard A. McInnisMay 2013The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has struck down the NLRB’s rule requiring all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the Act.
Employee lacks ADA claim because of absenteeismBy Michael R. LiedMay 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.
Federal successor liability under ERISA and the MPPAABy Donald S. Rothschild & Brian M. DoughertyJuly 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. RhodeJuly 2013The Court held that based on Hitchcock’s evidence, a reasonable juror could determine that the reasons given for her termination was pre-textual.
New rules enforcing Illinois non-competes—Now easier or harder?By Richard A. SugarSeptember 2013In a recent trifecta of Illinois Appellate Court cases, judges have altered the landscape in Illinois regarding the lengths to which employers can go to protect their customers, clients, patients, and marketplace from competition originating from former employees
Otto May, Jr. v. Chrysler Group LLC: Anatomy of the largest employment discrimination verdict in Illinois historyBy Stephen E. BaloghAugust 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.
A recent PSEBA decision: Lifetime benefits they are not!By Carlos S. ArévaloMarch 2013The Fifth District Appellate Court recently held in Pyle v. City of Granite Citythat a firefighter was not entitled to the so-called “lifetime” health insurance benefits from his employer, the City of Granite City.
Social media and employer liability under the NLRABy Michael K. ChropowiczMarch 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.
Some safety incentive programs may be unlawfulBy Michael R. LiedDecember 2013Incentive programs that discourage employees from reporting their injuries are problematic because, under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, an employer may not “in any manner discriminate” against an employee because the employee exercises a protected right, such as the right to report an injury.
The Supreme Court’s Vance v. Ball State University decision—Who is a supervisor for purposes of Title VII?By Carlos S. ArévaloSeptember 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.
U.S. Supreme Court requires “but for” causation standard in Title VII retaliation claimsBy Jon D. HoagSeptember 2013The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, that employees must establish retaliation is the “but-for” cause and not simply a “motivating factor” of the adverse action, is a victory for employers.