By Pamela Q. Devata, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Robert T. Szyba
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2015).
As we previously reported, the Spokeo petition poses a question with a significant impact on the future scope of consumer
Continue Reading The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari In Spokeo – No Harm, No Standing?
By Pamela Q. Devata, Cameron Smith, and Courtney S. Stieber
On April 16, 2015, the New York City Council passed Intro-261-A, a bill that would amend the New York City Human Rights Law to make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use an individual’s consumer credit history in making employment decisions. In particular, the bill makes
Continue Reading New York City To Prohibit Use of Credit History in Employment Decisions
By Sara Eber Fowler and Johanna T. Wise
Last week, an en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals took a fresh look at whether Ford Motor Company’s decision to deny an employee’s request to telecommute four days a week violated the ADA. Reversing its prior ruling from last year (previously reported here), the 8-5 panel in
Continue Reading So Is Telecommuting A Reasonable Accommodation? Not So Fast Says The Sixth Circuit, Reversing Course.
By: Dawn Reddy Solowey and Ariel Cudkowicz
On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., a closely-watched religious discrimination case that we’ve blogged about before.
The EEOC’s petition for certiorari framed the legal question this way: “Whether an employer can be liable under Title VII for refusing
Continue Reading A “Real Administrative Rat Mess” (or Takeaways from SCOTUS Oral Arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch)
By: Camille A. Olson and Lawrence Z. Lorber
In what has become one of the most highly anticipated employment law cases of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 October Term, today the Court heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service over whether “light duty” work assignments must be provided to employees for non-work related conditions if the light duty
Continue Reading Supreme Court Debates Reach of Pregnancy Law
By: Ada W. Dolph and Howard M. Wexler
New Jersey’s whistleblower statute, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), N.J.S.A. 34:19-1, is frequently referred to as one of the most expansive whistleblower statutes in the country. Currently before the New Jersey Supreme Court is the case of Lippman v. Ethicon, Inc., No. A-65/66-13 (cert. granted Mar. 14, 2014), which will have
Continue Reading Interest Groups Weigh In On Significant New Jersey Supreme Court Case Involving the Scope of CEPA Whistleblower Claims
By Dawn Solowey, Kristin McGurn and Beth Foley
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and two of its transit police officers secured an important summary judgment win this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the case of Delaney v. MBTA et al., represented by Seyfarth’s Whistleblower Team.
The Claims
Lisa Delaney, formerly
Continue Reading MBTA Secures Victory in Massachusetts Whistleblower Case, Represented by Seyfarth Whistleblower Team
By: Dave Baffa and Ashley Kircher
Let’s face it: for employers, class and collective actions are a serious bummer. While compliance is key for avoiding mass claims, pursuing class and collective actions is a “business,” and even the most compliance-oriented employers are frequent targets. But while becoming a defendant may seems inevitable, the opportunity to have a reliable, defensible employee
Continue Reading Time to “Waive” Goodbye to Class and Collective Actions?