Labor and Employment Law

Subscribe to Labor and Employment Law via RSS

We recently reported (see page 2) that the EEOC had approved and intended to publish a rule specifically authorizing retiree health benefit plans to coordinate plan benefits with Medicare or comparable state-sponsored health benefits without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Recently, a federal district court in Pennsylvania issued an order enjoining, or prohibiting, the EEOC from publishing or implementing the retiree health benefit regulation. AARP v. EEOC, No. 05-CV-509 (E.D. Pa. March 30, 2005), 2005 WL 723991. The EEOC has indicated its intent to appeal the recent ruling.
Continue Reading Federal District Court Enjoins EEOC Rule on Retiree Health Benefits

The United States Supreme Court ruled on March 30, 2005, in a matter of first impression, that disparate-impact claims are available to employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Smith et al. v. City of Jackson, MS, et al., No. 03-1160 (2005). In sum, this ruling allows employees to prevail in an ADEA claim against their employers without proving that the employer intended to discriminate based on the employee’s age.
Continue Reading Disparate Impact Claims Available Under the ADEA

Put this in the category of – “What’s in a name?” Or “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” An issue which arises often in the employment area is the significance of a title given to an employee or to a job. The question arises when an employer enters into a contract with someone characterized as an “independent contractor,” or the employer gives a job/position a title such as “salaried administrative.” Simply put, you cannot change the nature of an employment relationship by naming a position or entering into a contract.
Continue Reading What’s in a Name? – Significance of Employee Titles

In December of 2004, Congress amended the Uniform Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act (USERRA) 38 USC §§ 4301, et seq. The recent amendment (38 USC § 4334) requires that employers provide eligible employees with notice of their rights, benefits, and obligations under USERRA. The notice requirement can be met by posting a notice where…

A recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Clara Patrick versus Tom Ridge, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, No. 04-10194 (December 2004) shows how a lack Of “sufficient clarity” in articulating a reason for an employment decision can sometimes negatively impact an employer.

The employee in this case advanced charges of age discrimination and retaliation arising out of the employer’s refusal to promote her to a supervisory position for which she had applied. The district court had earlier dismissed the claims pursuant to a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the dismissal and at the same time provided employers with a good reminder about the need to be able to articulate “specifics” in certain situations. The district court ruled (and the defendants did not challenge on appeal) that the employee succeeded
in making out a prima facie case for both age discrimination and retaliation.
Continue Reading How Specific Do Employers Need to Be?