|
| 07.09.09 | Employers Watch Out: E-mail Could Be the New, Powerful Communication Tool for Unions in Your Workplace
David B. Ritter, Sonya Rosenberg, Amy J. Zdravecky
Abstract: Among the highly anticipated developments to come under the Obama administration, on Tuesday, July 7, 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Bush Administration’s National Labor Relations Board precedent that, until now, permitted employers to prohibit union-related e-mail solicitations on their computer systems, while allowing employee solicitations for other personal, non-work-related matters. The court’s decision, though not surprising, is an important one. It dramatically changes the playing field for union-related organizing and mobilization, and requires employers to promptly and effectively revisit their electronic monitoring and solicitation policies and practices. |
|
| 07.01.09 | Supreme Court Rules Employer Violated Title VII By Voiding Job Test Results That Were Perceived To Have A Disparate Impact On Minority Applicants
David B. Ritter, William J. Tarnow II
Abstract: In a much-anticipated decision, on June 29, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer’s decision to discard results from a job-promotion examination – after all of the African-American candidates failed to qualify – was unlawful because it constituted discriminatory, race-based decision-making which negatively impacted the white applicants who, in fact, had passed the test and would have received the promotions. (Ricci v. DeStefano, U.S. No. 07-1428, 6/29/09). The Ricci decision was issued by a sharply divided Court, as five Justices joined in the decision, while four Justices dissented. Though the Ricci decision is favorable for employers and has been hailed by some as one of the most important employment law cases in the last decade, the Court has adopted an inherently uncertain standard which will be subject to interpretation on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, if the dissent’s predictions are given credence, the decision may have limited usefulness for employers in the future. |
|
| 06.30.09 | Tough Love: The First 100 Days of the Obama Administration
FistfulofTalent.com
David B. Ritter, Gray I. Mateo-Harris
Abstract: Fans and critics alike agree on one thing: President Obama means business. And his business is change. Change is practically smacking American employers in the face. For better or worse, the Obama Administration promises to bring dramatic changes to the American workplace and the courtrooms tasked with enforcing labor and employment laws. Employers must brace themselves for the new administration's "tough love" or prepare for the financial consequences. The sooner they do this, the better. Neal Gerber Eisenberg Labor & Employment Practice Group chair David B. Ritter and member Gray A. Mateo co-authored a June 30, 2009 FistfulofTalent.com article. |
|
| 06.29.09 | IRS Explains Late Filing Procedures for Certain Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report Filers (Including Investors in Certain Offshore Funds)
Michael B. Gray, Scott J. Bakal, Matthew T. Koenders
Abstract: US taxpayers having a financial interest in or signature or other authority over foreign financial accounts have been required to file a "Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts" on Form TD F 90-22.1 (also known as an "FBAR") with the Treasury Department for a number of years. The FBAR reporting requirements have recently taken on additional importance, as a result of the IRS' pursuit of taxpayers with unreported foreign income and the issuance of a revised FBAR form for the 2008 reporting year defining a "financial account" to include certain equity interests in commingled funds, including mutual funds. |
|
| 06.26.09 | Supreme Court Raises Plaintiffs’ Burden In “Mixed Motive” ADEA Cases— Congress to Respond?
Eugene A. Boyle
Abstract: Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employers another significant victory by ruling, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., that plaintiffs in “mixed motive” discrimination cases under the ADEA must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged employment action. In other words, the Court stated, plaintiffs must show that age was the “reason” the employer decided to act. Prior to Gross, the federal appellate courts had unanimously applied a burden shifting framework to ADEA mixed motive cases under which a plaintiff needed only to show that age was a “motivating” or “substantial” factor in the employer’s action. Upon such a showing, the burden of persuasion shifted to the employer to prove that it would have taken the same action even if it had not considered the plaintiff’s age. In rejecting this framework for ADEA cases, and holding that the burden of proving “but-for” causation never leaves the plaintiff, the Court has made it much more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in this type of case. It remains to be seen whether Congress will act to overturn the Court’s decision. |
|
