Jury trials and the lawyers and firms who do them are increasingly rare. But it is well worth seeking one out if you have an employment dispute even if you don’t want to go to trial. That is because Jury trial experience informs every decision made in a case and may drive up settlement value
Whistle(blow) while you work
You saw your boss, coworker, or subordinate do something that you believe is illegal. Maybe they stole money from the company. Maybe they falsified or altered a report. Maybe they lied to shareholders. Maybe they asked you to do something that you believed was illegal. You want to report it, but you also want to
Undisputed allegations that an employee was subjected to intentional sabotage in the workplace, which included forcing the employee to operate a two person machine by herself and placing heavy materials she needed to work out of her reach, is enough to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
“Lopez responds that she suffered the following adverse employment actions as a result of her complaints: (1) she became the subject of actual sabotage in the workplace; (2) she was given a machine that usually had two operators, but she was supposed to operate it alone; (3) the men in the workplace were threatened not
: In FLSA Collective Action, potential defenses showing that plaintiffs are not similarly situated are only addressed at the decertification stage, not during the initial conditional certification inquiry.
Defendant contends that even if there was a common illegal policy, the suit cannot proceed as a collective action because Defendant will assert defenses that require individualized analysis for each putative class member (Dkt. #22 at p. 12). Challenges in litigating the suit or a particular need to address each perspective member of the collective
in FLSA Collective Action, Declarations from Plaintiff and other individuals detailing similar primary job duties and that they did not receive overtime pay is sufficient to conditionally certify class.
Plaintiff offers testimony that he performed the duties of a mortgage loan officer working for Defendant . . . . Plaintiff provides declarations of other individuals who claim the same primary job duty. Further, Plaintiff asserts that the “same pay practice” is Defendant failing to pay loan officers compensation tied to actual hours worked, denying
Assertion of Faragher-Ellerth defense based in part on internal investigation waives work product and attorney-client privileges for all documents created as part of the internal investigation.
Even if the attorney-client or work-product privileges were to apply, Herzing waived the privileges by asserting the Faragher-Ellerth defense. When a Title VII defendant affirmatively invokes a Faragher-Ellerth defense that is premised at least in part on an internal investigation, the defendant waives the attorney-client privilege and work- product doctrine for all documents created as
Notes taken during investigation of sexual harassment complaint are not protected by work product doctrine if company has policy of investigating all complaints of sexual harassment.
It is clear that, pursuant to Herzing’s policy, the investigation would have been conducted regardless of whether litigation ensued. As a result, the investigation was conducted in the ordinary course of business. Accordingly, the work-product privilege does not apply to Baiocchi’s notes. Ambrose-Frazier v. Herzing Inc, No. 15-1324, 2016 WL 890406 at *4 (E.D.
Evidence that employee had previously taken 21 weeks off for an injury without consequence creates fact issue over whether employee would have been fired for needing more than 12 weeks of FMLA leave.
Defendant has presented no evidence that it would have immediately terminated Plaintiff once she expended all her FMLA leave. In fact, Plaintiff declared that she was injured in an automobile accident in 2010, that she missed approximately twenty-one weeks of work, and that Defendant granted her nine weeks of non-FMLA leave after she exhausted her
Supervisor or management knowledge that employee intended to take medical leave is evidence that employer’s advanced notice policy was not violated.
In the Court’s opinion, the evidence cited above is sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiff actually violated the advance notice policy, which only requires that an employee provide notice to her supervisor. The record contains evidence that Plaintiff’s immediate supervisors and the director of her department knew that
Allowing employee to pay reduced rent for housing increases the employee’s regular rate of pay for computing overtime.
Thus, in certain situations, an employee’s wages may include “the reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator, to the employer of furnishing such employee with board, lodging, or other facilities.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m). However, such reasonable cost of lodging can only be computed when determining the employee’s regular rate of pay, such as when