A new I-9 form is now available from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. What’s changed, you might ask? Good question. Nothing substantive, merely the expiration date. Ironically, the Paperwork Reduction Act requires government forms to carry an expiration date, and because the old I-9 form expires June 30, 2008, the USCIS has to
June 2008
Female Crane Operator Sues for Sex Bias Over Urination Policy
Ever wonder how the people who operate those giant construction cranes at a high-rise construction site take bathroom breaks? Thanks to a new case, we now know. In Johnson v. AK Steel Corp., the Southern District of Ohio ruled last month that a female crane operator may proceed with state and federal gender discrimination…
Idaho Supreme Court Clarifies Covered Employment for Unemployment Insurance Tax Purposes
In Excell Construction Inc. v. Idaho Department of Commerce and Labor, the state’s high court provided a detailed analysis of each the factors to be considered in determining whether a worker is covered for tax purposes. The court adopted a list of fifteen factors an employer should consider in making that determination (and that…
New Idaho Statute Expands Noncompetition Agreements
A new Idaho statute (Idaho Code 44-2701 et seq.) set to go into effect July 1, 2008 defines presumptively reasonable limitations applicable to covenants against competition and solicitation by employees and independent contractors.
Under the statute, a noncompetition period of up to 18 months are presumptively reasonable, as is a geographic scope that includes anywhere…
Supreme Court Accepts Review of AT&T Retirement Benefits Case
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether employers may be liable under Title VII for not giving female employees full credit for pregnancy leaves in calculating retirement benefits. AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, U.S., No. 07-543.
The Ninth Circuit ruled last August that AT&T violated Title VII by calculating the female…
Big Day at the Supreme Court: Four New L&E Decisions
Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued four labor and employment-related decisions; none, however, were big surprises or substantial changes in the law.
First, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the Court held 8-0 that an employer defending an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case bears the burden of proving a "reasonable factors other than age" or "RFOA" affirmative defense. Truth be told, most defense lawyers have assumed that it was the employer’s burden to prove the affirmative defense; this decision simply confirms that assumption.
Continue Reading Big Day at the Supreme Court: Four New L&E Decisions
Oregon Court of Appeals: Keep Accommodating Medical Marijuana (For Now….)
In Emerald v. Bureau of Labor, The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a Bureau of Labor and Industries determination that an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s off-duty medical marijuana use. However, the case was affirmed on a technicality – again leaving Oregon employers wondering if they really have to accommodate an employee’s medical marijuana use. Continue Reading Oregon Court of Appeals: Keep Accommodating Medical Marijuana (For Now….)
Oregon Court of Appeals Upholds Employment Discrimination Statute
Oregon’s anti-discrimination statute allows an employee alleging employment discrimination to file either a lawsuit (which results in a jury trial) or an administrative complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (which results in an administrative hearing with no jury). In Emerald v. Bureau of Labor, the employer argued that allowing an employee to arbitrarily choose whether or not there will be a jury trial violates the employer’s right to a jury trial under the Oregon Constitution. Not so, ruled the Oregon Court of Appeals earlier this week. Continue Reading Oregon Court of Appeals Upholds Employment Discrimination Statute
Former Official Sues NASCAR for Race, Sex Harassment
Today’s big news: Former NASCAR technical inspector Mauricia Grant filed suit against the auto racing league for sexual and racial harassment, discrimination and retaliation, seeking $225 million dollars. According to Grant’s complaint, she was referred to as "Nappy Headed Mo" and "Queen Sheba" by co-workers, was often told she worked on "colored people time" and…
Supreme Court: No “Class of One” Claims
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court struck a blow for public employers, ruling that the "class of one" theory does not apply in public employment cases.
In Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, the plaintiff alleged that she was fired not because she was a member of a protected class (such as race, sex,…