11.05.09
Wendy J. Lario, Katrina M. Goyco
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) revised its workplace poster to incorporate the changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which took effect on January 1, 2009, and to include the new requirements of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which takes effect on November 21, 2009. These new developments in federal anti-discrimination law apply to private employers, state and local governments, educational institutions, employment agencies, and labor organizations.
07.09.09
Douglas W. Bartinik
What can an employer do when contemplating an employment decision based on objective criteria such as test scores, when the results appear to favor an employee of one race and thereby disadvantage an employee of another race? On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court answered this question, in Ricci v. DeStefano - the much-publicized case involving the New Haven, CT fire department - by holding that, unless the employer has a "strong basis in evidence" to believe that the contemplated decision would itself violate Title VII, then the employer cannot discard the objective criteria or test results.
06.22.09
Victoria Woodin Chavey, Douglas W. Bartinik
On June 18, 2009, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the United States Supreme Court rejected the notion that an age discrimination plaintiff may use the so-called "mixed motive" theory to require the defendant to prove that it would have taken the challenged action regardless of age. The Court held instead that a plaintiff asserting a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must prove that age was the "but-for" cause of the employer’s adverse employment action.
06.19.09
Douglas W. Bartinik, Wendy J. Lario
On June 18, 2009, the United States Supreme Court rejected the notion that an employee alleging age discrimination may use the so-called “mixed motive” theory to shift the burden of proof to the employer. In Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., the Court held instead that an employee asserting a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must prove that age was the “but-for” cause of the employer’s adverse employment action.
06.15.09
Claudia T. Centomini, Joy E. Taylor
On June 11, 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued its long-awaited decision in Electronic Data Systems Corporation v. Attorney General, holding an employer violates the Massachusetts Wage Act when that employer's policy requires terminated employees to forfeit accrued, unused vacation time at the time of discharge.