News
[03/09]
Senate to take up unemployment insurance extension
[03/08]
Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009
[03/08]
Court will decide if NASA checks can continue
[03/04]
Jobless claims drop, productivity revised higher
[03/04]
No is no: More men file sexual harassment claims
More...
Articles
Employee Retirement Income Security Act
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was enacted in 1974. The act does not require that an employer offer any particular benefits to employees, but instead governs how employee benefit and welfare programs, once offered by an employer, must be managed. In essence, an employer who decides to provide employees with "funded" benefits or who requires contributions from employees assumes a host of new responsibilities under the law. ERISA is jointly administered by the Employee Benefits Security Administration of the Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue Service, and applies to pension plans, health insurance, disability benefits, death benefits, pre-paid legal services, vacation benefits, day care centers, scholarship funds, apprenticeships, and training benefits, where offered by an employer.
More...
What Laws Protect Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination?
Private employers seeking to learn more about their obligations to prevent discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation should look to the law of their specific jurisdictions. There are few federal legal protections against this type of employment discrimination.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/09]
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.
[03/08]
McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.
[03/05]
Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.
[03/05]
Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.
[03/04]
Smith v. Adventist Health Sys.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-hospital group seeking a preliminary injunction for rejecting his application for hospital privileges and medical staff membership at defendant's hospital, judgment granting the injunction and restoring his privileges is affirmed and the court did not err when it: 1) impliedly found that a statutorily required injunction bond had been waived or forfeited; 2) expressly found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and 3) balanced the likely interim harm to the parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction.
More...
|
