About Us  |  About Cheetah®  |  Contact Us

News

Subscribe to the Employment Law Daily RSS Subscribe

Fired for anti-LGBT Facebook post, employee can’t show Title VII or free speech retaliation

January 8th, 2018

By Joy P. Waltemath, J.D.
Allegations that an employee was fired because she posted on her Facebook page a photograph of a man wearing a dress at a Target store and commented on his potential use of the women’s restroom and/or dressing room—and that the company president, a “member of the LGBT community,” suggested she be [Read more...]


PTSD diagnosis following knife attack unknown to employer; disability bias claims fail

January 8th, 2018

By David Yucht, J.D. and Ronald Miller, J.D.
An employee who developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following a workplace knife attack by a coworker failed to prove that his termination was the result of disability discrimination or retaliation or that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, ruled a federal district court in New York. [Read more...]


Medical resident not an ADA ‘qualified individual’ because he repeatedly failed licensing exams

January 5th, 2018

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
Affirming summary judgment against ADA discrimination and non-accommodation claims by a medical resident who was not allowed to continue his third year in a residency program, the Seventh Circuit found it undisputed that passing licensing exams was essential to his position and, given his repeated failures, he could not show that [Read more...]


Protected activity must be ‘but-for’ cause of adverse action to support False Claims Act retaliation claim

January 5th, 2018

By Ronald Miller, J.D.
An employee’s protected activity must be the “but-for” cause of adverse actions to support a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, ruled the Third Circuit. The appeals court observed that the FCA anti-retaliation provision used the same “because of” language that compelled the Supreme Court to require “but-for” causation in Univ. [Read more...]


CA-9 certifies questions on applicability of California meal- and rest-period regulations to EMTs working 24-hour shifts

January 4th, 2018

By Ronald Miller, J.D.
Facing two sets of issues unresolved under California law, the Ninth Circuit certified to the California Supreme Court questions involving the application of rest- and meal-period regulations to ambulance attendants working 24-hour shifts. Additionally, the appeals court sought guidance on whether a meal period violation may form the basis for a claim [Read more...]