The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
(Podcast) The Briefing – Late Night, Early Dismissal: The Santos-Kimmel Copyright Case
Fifth Circuit Affirms District Court’s Striking of Class Allegations
Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
Class Action Suit Against Instagram for New Terms of Service Dismissed
When advising employers about the legal risks associated with a business reorganization, we generally advise that discrimination claims are less likely when a company closes an entire facility or department as compared to...more
SkyWest Airlines, Inc., was justified in discharging a deaf ramp agent because his inability to hear or effectively communicate posed a “direct threat” to the safety of himself and others, the U.S. District Court for the...more
Das Bundesarbeitsgericht hatte sich in einer aktuellen Entscheidung (BAG, Urteil vom 24. August 2023 – 2 AZR 17/23, PM) damit auseinander zu setzen, inwiefern Äußerungen, die in privaten WhatsApp-Chatgruppen getätigt wurden,...more
On May 1, 2023, in Onukogu v. New Jersey State Judiciary, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the employer, affirming the dismissal of the...more
On May 17, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina made a significant ruling in Phillips v. Wolfspeed, Inc., where a former employee’s claims of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation were...more
A recent federal court decision provides a new pathway for Philadelphia employers to defeat certain workplace discrimination claims. In the February 13 decision of Lee v. Bay, LLC, District Court Judge Joshua Wolson from the...more
On May 20, 2022, in McVey v AtlantiCare Medical System, the New Jersey Appellate Division Panel affirmed the dismissal of an employee’s case holding that her termination was not in violation of the protections afforded to...more
Executive Summary: On March 7, 2022, a sharply divided panel of the Second Circuit (covering New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) addressed the question of what a Title VII plaintiff must claim to adequately plead the...more
If an employer’s termination is deemed invalid in Germany, he will need to back-pay the remuneration since the presumed termination date. Considerable sums can accumulate in this regard. This risk is a key reason why many...more
Religious schools expressed relief when the United States Supreme Court expanded the application of the ministerial exception in July 2020 in the combined cases of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrisey-Berru and St. James...more
Under Oklahoma law, employees who are terminated from their jobs in violation of Oklahoma public policy may, in some cases, file a wrongful discharge lawsuit against their former employer. Increasingly these lawsuits involve...more
Leaked Legal Advice Protected Under Privilege, Court of Appeal Holds - Precedential Decision by Judiciary or Regulatory Agency - On October 22, 2019, the UK Court of Appeal held that a leaked email, in which in-house...more
Unused vacation time can represent a substantial liability on the books for many employers. Therefore, the extent to which you can control the payout of unused vacation time upon an employee’s separation from employment is an...more
Add this case to your “Be Sure to Document Your Non-Discriminatory Reasons” file. An employee doing bad things lost on summary judgment in an employment discrimination action, even though she alleged that the company did not...more
On July 23, 2019, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of an age-discrimination complaint against a bank where the bank’s internal investigation revealed that the plaintiff violated its code-of-ethics policy. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In a refreshing display of judicial restraint, the California Court of Appeal has declined to extend California’s “wrongful termination” law to a failure to hire, because in the absence of a preexisting...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
The Americans with Disabilities Act not only provides protections for disabled persons but also those “regarded as” having a disability, even if they are healthy. On September 12, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which...more
Employers, you see this movie all too often. You tolerate, and then ultimately discharge, a poor-performing employee who displays a bad attitude. Unfortunately, supervisors have not documented the employee’s prior instances...more
An individual may file a claim under Tennessee’s “whistleblower statute”—the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA)—if she was fired solely for reporting or refusing to participate in illegal activity. Similar to federal law,...more
In an unpublished opinion, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled in Caballero v. Cablevision Systems Corp. that a former Cablevision employee is entitled to present her claims of age and disability discrimination to a jury,...more
A New York federal court recently reinforced the limited geographic scope of the New York City Human Rights Law, a city law which provides broader anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections to employees than the New...more
Under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), also known as the “whistleblower statute,” it is unlawful to fire an employee “solely for refusing to participate in, or for refusing to remain silent about, illegal...more
According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers may only require employees to submit to medical exams or inquiries when there is a business necessity for determining the employee’s ability to perform the essential...more
On November 29, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Mitchell v. Winco Foods, No. 17-35998, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33483 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2018); a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) case on appeal...more