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
Evidence that co-employee or manager misrepresented employment test results that may have been caused by employee’s disability shows disability animus that may be imputed to company to show pretext because employer relied on that misrepresentation to terminate plaintiff.
As discussed above, Hauss allegedly misrepresented the erratic test results—which Dr. McKinnon and Audiologist Sanders attribute to Brown’s hearing disability—to the decisionmaker Goodson, thereby creating a factual issue as to whether Hauss exhibited disability-based animus. In turn, Goodson conducted a subsequent investigation into Brown’s conduct, including, among other things, consultation with Hauss. Goodson testified
Expert testimony that disability caused unusual test results that were basis for termination establishes the causal connection requirement for prima facie disability discrimination case.
In view of these expert opinions that Brown’s hearing impairment caused his unusual results, and given the fact that these results undisputedly resulted (one way or the other) in his termination, the Court finds sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between Brown’s disability and termination.
Brown v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., No. 1:13-cv-00176-SA-JMV, 2015
Submission of online application by Plaintiff authorizing prior employers to provide full details of past employment does not waive a mutual non-disparagement provision of a settlement agreement.
Assuming Shannon authorized the Church to speak with the Seminary, the Church nevertheless was bound to communicate in accordance with the terms of its Agreement. We conclude that in signing the authorization, Shannon did not unequivocally manifest the intent not to assert any of her rights under the Agreement. In other words, Shannon did not