The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) recently issued a new I-9 Form containing a revision date of “06/16/08″ at the lower right corner of the form and an expiration date of 06/30/09 at the upper right corner of the form. There is no substantive change between the old I-9 Form and the new I-9 Form, the form simply bears a new revision and expiration date.
The current minimum wage is set at $5.85 per hour and increases to $6.55 per hour on July 24, 2008.
On May 26, 2008, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed the Maryland “Flexible Leave Act” into law. Under the Act, which is effective October 1, 2008, Maryland businesses employing 15 or more employees must allow their employees to use any form of accrued leave (vacation, sick leave or compensatory time) with pay to care for a child, spouse or parent who is ill.
Here are a couple of blog posts of interest today:
The Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog has a post on OFCCP Audits.
The Ohio Employer’s Law Blog has a post on overtime implications of reading emails on your Blackberry after work hours. (We previously posted on the topic here.)
The FMLA Blog has a post on the Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari in the Taylor v. Progress Energy case out of the Fourth Circuit. The case leaves intact a Circuit split on the issue of whether waivers of FMLA claims are enforceable absent Court or DOL approval. The Solicitor General had urged denial of certiorari because the DOL is revising its regulations to make clear that waivers of past claims are enforceable but prospective waivers are not.
During a labor and employment law seminar last week, I heard commentary on the use by employers of services to handle unemployment hearings or EEOC position statements. Although these services are very helpful for many employers, there is one substantial risk that arises in doing so. In many cases, the prepaid services do not devote sufficient attention to stating the true and complete reason for the employee’s termination. This can lead to admissions being made that will be used against the employer in subsequent EEOC proceedings and end up being devastating.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has issued a published decision holding that a plan administrator does not have discretionary authority, but only mere authority, under an ERISA plan that only designates the plan administrator to make timely benefit determinations. Accordingly, it remanded the benefits claim for de novo review, as opposed to the more deferential review for discretionary decisions.
Human Resource Executive Online had a recent article entitled Caregivers Unite on the new attention being given to family and caregiving discrimination. The article is worth reading as an update on current trends in this area. Given the increasing attention to family and caregiver discrimination, we are doing a refresher post on the topic today.
Today’s update on recent jury verdicts and settlements after the page break.
On June 6, 2008, President Bush issued an Executive Order that requires government contractors to use the Department of Homeland Security E-Verify system to ensure that all new employees are authorized to work in the United States. The DHS press release about the Executive Order can be found here.
UPDATE: Oddly enough, the General Accounting Office released a report on June 10 entitled “Challenges Exist in Implementing A Mandatory Electronic Employment Verification System.” The report suggests, among other things, that implementing E-Verify from 2009-2012 for new employees only would cost $765 million. (Hat tip to Workplace Prof Blog.)
The U.S. Department of Labor released its report for May 2008 on the employment situation in the U.S. The table of contents for the report can be found here. This is the DOL summary:
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MAY 2008
The unemployment rate rose from 5.0 to 5.5 percent in May, and nonfarm payroll employment continued to trend down (-49,000), the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. In May, employment continued to fall in construction, manufacturing, retail trade, and temporary help services, while health care continued to add jobs. Average hourly earnings rose by 5 cents, or 0.3 percent, over the month.
In an update on our earlier post on the “Reverend” discrimination case, Andrews v. Virginia Union University, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the University’s motion for summary judgment as to almost all of Rev. Andrews’ claims, allowing them to proceed to trial. The Court’s memorandum opinion is here.
MA — Jury awards former Cambridge city worker $4.5 million in retaliation lawsuit. The verdict includes $3.5 million in punitive damages. Another article is here.
CO — Boulder postal worker wins $200,000 in racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit.
NY — EEOC settles sex bias lawsuit against state corrections department for almost $1 million. The case involved allegations of disparate treatment in medical leave benefits.
NY — Tavern on the Green agrees to pay $2.2 million to settle a discrimination and harassment action filed by the EEOC alleging harassment against females and minorities. According to the EEOC’s press release, “The EEOC charged in the case that Tavern on the Green engaged in severe and pervasive sexual, racial, and national origin harassment of female, black, and Hispanic employees. The sexual harassment included graphic comments and demands for various sex acts, as well as groping of women’s buttocks and breasts. The racial and national origin harassment included epithets toward black and Hispanic employees and ridiculing Hispanics for their accents. The restaurant also retaliated against employees for refusing to consent to and/or objecting to the harassment, according to the EEOC.” A consent decree has been submitted to the U.S. District Court in New York for approval of the settlement terms.
The Delaware Employment Law Blog has a post on the Tavern on the Green settlement here.
In Sutherland v. SOS International, Judge Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the employer’s pre-trial motion for summary judgment related to the employee’s overtime claims under the FLSA and discriminatory discharge claim under USERRA due to the existence of factual disputes. The denial of the employer’s pre-trial motion for summary judgment means that the case will proceed to a jury trial. The case highlights some of the issues that trip up employers when defending these types of claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries that 42 U.S.C. section 1981 provides a remedy for claims of retaliation for complaining about discrimination in connection with the making or enforcement of contracts. Section 1981 itself prohibits race discrimination in the making or enforcement of contracts. It has been construed to include employment discrimination claims. Today’s decision opens the door to retaliation claims.
Subscribe to our feed