The United States Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Ricci, et. al. v. Destefano, et. al. case (referred to by the press as the “reverse” discrimination case that U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, decided with other Court of Appeal justices). Essentially the case stands for the rule that an employer may not manipulate (adjust for race conscious reasons) the results of a legitimate, facially neutral, and job-related promotional examination to obtain a more diverse workforce absent a showing that there is a strong basis for the employer to believe that if it does not manipulate the results it will be exposed to disparate impact liability (unintentional discrimination liability based on the negative effect an otherwise neutral policy or practice may have on a protected class).

Continue Reading AN EMPLOYER’S DILEMMA: DISPARATE TREATMENT VERSUS DISPARATE IMPACT

In the recent case of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must prove that his/her age was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action they claim was discriminatory (e.g. demotion). Plaintiff was 54 years old when his employer reassigned him from his position as a claims administration director to a claims project coordinator. Many of his responsibilities in the director position were transferred to one of his subordinates who was in her early 40’s. Although Plaintiff’s compensation was not reduced, he believed that his transfer to the coordinator position was a demotion and filed an age discrimination claim under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Continue Reading AGE MUST BE THE “BUT FOR” CAUSE FOR ALLEGED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

On January 6, 2009 the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Opinion Letter FMLA2009-1-A to respond to a request for clarification regarding employee notification procedures under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as discussed in the DOL’s previous Wage and Hour Opinion Letter FMLA-101 (January 15, 1999).  The DOL indicated that it was brought to its attention that some employers had interpreted Opinion Letter FMLA-101 to stand for the proposition that under the FMLA, employers were not permitted to apply their internal call-in policies or discipline employees under their no call/no show policies, provided the employees provide notice within two (2) business days that the leave was FMLA-qualifying, regardless of whether the employee could have practicably provided notice sooner.

Continue Reading DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ISSUES AN OPINION LETTER CLARIFYING AN EMPLOYER’S RIGHT TO ENFORCE ITS CALL-IN POLICIES UNDER THE FMLA

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just announced that it will delay enforcement of the identity theft “Red Flags Rule” (Rule) until August 1, 2009.   The Rule was discussed previously in Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Tobin & Tobin’s Law Alert Article: Deadline to Have Identity Theft Prevention program Prepared and Implemented is May 1, dated April 15, 2009.

Continue Reading FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION EXTENDS DEADLINE TO COMPLY WITH THE “RED FLAGS” IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION RULE

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Identity Theft Prevention Red Flags Rule (16 .C.F.R. § 681.2) which went into effect on January 1, 2008, all financial institutions and creditors must prepare and implement a written “Red Flags” Program by May 1, 2009. The determination of whether a business or organization is covered by the Red Flags Rule is not based on a particular industry or sector, but rather on whether the activities of the business or organization fall within the relevant definitions.

Continue Reading WILL YOU HAVE YOUR IDENTITY THEFT PREVENTION PROGRAM (aka “RED FLAGS” PROGRAM) PREPARED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE MAY 1, 2009 DEADLINE?