By ERIN O’NEIL-BAKER
On October 1, 2013, hundreds of families across the United States were impacted by the federal government shutdown. Two of my undocumented clients were affected, when they appeared for their long-awaited decision in Hartford Immigration Court only to find a note on a locked door that read: “Immigration Court Closed Due To Government Shutdown!!!!!”
By LAUREN M. SIGG and MEGAN R. NAUGHTON
As businesses become more global, companies are transferring more and more employees, including managers, executives, and lawyers, to work at facilities outside of the United States. This can lead to complications, however, when the employee is a U.S. lawful permanent resident.
By L. KAY WILSON
June 24, 2013, was a good day for employers. Two decisions came down from the U.S. Supreme Court that bode well for defense attorneys by limiting claimants chances of prevailing on retaliation claims and claims against employers for vicarious liability for the illegal actions of putative supervisors. Each case had the exact same split, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts joining the majority opinion, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan offering dissenting opinions.
By EDWARD F. ‘BUD’ O’DONNELL Jr.
National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol recently penned a neat summation of a complicated, but well-settled area of NLRB law. His decision very succinctly explained board policies regarding the deferral of unfair labor practice charges to the grievance and arbitration procedures in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
By ROBERT G. BRODY and REBECCA GOLDBERG
Unions are dying, but union advocates are hoping they have found a virtual solution. For the last two years, only 6.9 percent of private sector workers were unionized. Many view unions as outdated — helpful for eliminating sweatshop conditions in the early 20th century, but doing little more than contributing to bloated payrolls today. Union organizers are desperate to rebrand themselves, lest they become as irrelevant in today’s world as the pay phone and the VCR.
By MARGARET M. SHEAHAN
For the first time ever, the federal government is imposing nose-counting requirements on contractors’ hiring and retention of protected veterans and individuals with disabilities (IWDs). The moving target that is “individuals with disabilities” is reasonably familiar to the bar these days.
By PETER J. MURPHY
“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” Everyone reading this article undoubtedly heard this statement countless times from their parents or grandparents when growing up. In law school and early in our legal careers, we received similar advice from professors and mentors, as initial impressions matter with courts, clients, and opposing counsel.
By JOHN STRETTON and STEVEN CUFF
The conversation happens every day in businesses across America. An employee approaches her supervisor and casually says, “Hey, I’ve got to take off at 2 o’clock for a doctor’s appointment — is that alright?” The well-intentioned supervisor, seeking only to make conversation and show empathy as we, as humans, are taught to do, responds, “Sure. Everything OK?” Has the supervisor asked too much? Has the supervisor impermissibly requested the disclosure of confidential employee medical information?
by MAGGIE FERRON and JOANN RICCIARDELLI
Over the past few years, federal courts have moved towards limiting the ways in which employees can join wage and hour lawsuits and inform one another of the existence of these lawsuits. For example, after Walmart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), federal courts have become more hesitant to certify class actions in employment cases.
By ASHLEY TOTORICA
Almost as soon as Justice Anthony Kennedy had finished announcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, No. 12-484 (June 24, 2013), the decision was widely reported as a victory for employers — and rightly so. The Supreme Court’s holding that retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are to be analyzed pursuant to the traditional “but for” causation standard, as opposed to the more liberal “motivating factor” standard applicable to discrimination claims, unequivocally raised the bar for any employee pursuing a claim of retaliation under Title VII