The Laconic Law Blog

Our latest update after the break.  Happy Independence Day!

Read the rest of this entry »

In 2008, Maryland adopted legislation that required employers (with 15 or more employees) to allow their employees to use accrued, paid leave to care for an ill, immediate family member.  The law, however, was unclear in its definitions of immediate family member, employer, employees, and leave with pay.  (Our prior post on the flexible leave law is here.)  More after the break regarding recent amendments that attempt to clarify these issues.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here are some tidbits we found interesting:

The Unfair Business Practices blog has a post here about an interesting Virginia federal court decision involving the theft of computer data and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (”CFAA”).

A post with an update on revisions to the Maryland unemployment law can be found here.  (Maryland Employment Law)

$200 million wage suit filed against Northwestern Mutual.  Law.com story here.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the Ricci reverse-discrimination case today.  SCOTUS Blog has a link to the opinion here.  The internet will be awash with commentary by this evening, so we will be laconic and stop here.

In FLIR Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, the California Court of Appeals affirmed a $1.6 million judgment in favor of the employees in a claim brought by their former employer under California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  The opinion can be found here.  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

Our latest update after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. that a plaintiff in a case brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) cannot use the “mixed motive” proof standard to prove their claim.  A sampling of today’s blog comments are here, here and here.  (We will update the post with additional blog posts or articles of interest.)  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

After a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia holding that a business insurance carrier must defend an employer after a workplace shooting leads to a negligence action by the employee’s estate (see article here), a split has arisen between the Eastern and Western Districts.  According to the article, a decision from the Western District reaching the opposite conclusion is on appeal to the 4th Circuit.

Although this was not an EPLI case, it is a good reminder to employers to check for any applicable insurance coverage after any workplace “claim” arises.  If there is an arguable basis for coverage, the employer should place the carrier on notice of the claim to protect its rights under the policy.

Former law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court may no longer get $250,000 signing bonuses.  Law.com article here.

“Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, the fifth-most profitable U.S. law firm, is offering $80,000 to incoming lawyers to defer their starting dates for a year, according to an internal memo obtained by Bloomberg News.”  Bloomberg.com article here.  The Business Insider has a story here.  The Manpower Employment Blawg has a post about the topic here.

As a client, are you excited about paying for attorneys who are doing no work for you to take a year off?  Do you really feel that you are getting great value from your law firm when they are using your fees to subsidize a $250,000 signing bonus for a lawyer who has never practiced law?  Just asking.

A question after a recent speech about whether alcoholism is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”) prompts us to write a short post on the topic.  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Third Circuit recently resolved a sexual harassment case against the employee/plaintiff, concluding that someone higher in authority than a “supervisor” must have knowledge of the harassment and/or complaint in order for that knowledge to be imputed to the company under general agency principles.  The case is Huston v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Prods. Corp. (opinion here).  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

The effective date of the final rule requiring certain federal contractors and subcontractors to use E-Verify has been delayed until September 8, 2009.  The USCIS has an E-Verify site with updates here.  (Hat tip to the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog for the news.)

Some employment law tidbits after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

Our latest update on recent jury verdicts and settlements after the break.  Those who make it to the bottom of the list will be surprised.

Read the rest of this entry »

In Fields v. Prater, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision by concluding that plaintiff Tammy Fields was wrongfully denied a position as the local director of a county department of social services based on her political affiliation.  This was in violation of her First Amendment rights.  However, the court stated that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity based on the lack of clarity in the law at the time of the decision.  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Cochran v. Holder addresses the issue of when a decision by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) becomes “final” for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c).  The EEOC regulation allows federal employees to file a civil action for illegal discrimination by their employer within 90 days of a “final” adverse decision by the Commission.  More after the break.

Read the rest of this entry »