About Us  |  About IntelliConnect®  |  Contact Us

News

Subscribe to the Employment Law Daily RSS Subscribe

EEOC’s ADEA suit against state court not barred by 11th amendment immunity

October 21st, 2014

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.
Observing that the applicability of the Eleventh Amendment “depends as much on the identity of the plaintiff as it does on the identity of the defendant,” and that suits by the United States against a state are not barred by the constitution, a federal district court in Pennsylvania found that an ADEA [Read more...]


Kmart can reinstate alleged “failure to conciliate” by EEOC as affirmative defense

October 21st, 2014

By Joy P. Waltemath, J.D.
Because the availability of a “failure to conciliate” defense is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal district court in Maryland found no reason that Kmart could not amend its answer to reinstate the EEOC’s alleged failure to conciliate as an affirmative defense, especially where it was included in Kmart’s [Read more...]


Nursing home must try ADA claim by hairdresser who couldn’t push wheelchairs

October 21st, 2014

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
Noting that a nursing home administrator made an implausible assumption that pushing a wheelchair took up the majority of a hairdresser’s time without asking her and flatly refused to consider accommodating her lifting restriction by assigning an orderly to push wheelchair-bound residents to and from the beauty shop or by assigning [Read more...]


Saying cashiers should mirror young, white clientele was direct evidence of bias

October 18th, 2014

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
Denying summary judgment on the age and race discrimination claims of a Publix cashier, a federal district court in Alabama found direct evidence of both age and racial bias through a store manager’s remarks that “front end” employees should “mirror” the young, white clientele and that younger workers made for a [Read more...]


Employee definition used in California wage orders applied in misclassification suit

October 18th, 2014

By Ronald Miller, J.D.
A California Court of Appeals denied, in part, a challenge to a trial court’s determination that delivery drivers were employees within the meaning of California Wage Order No. 9. The drivers alleged that the employer violated California wage and hour law when it converted their status from employee to independent contractor. The [Read more...]