WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Collection and Jurisdiction in Multistate Workers' Compensation Cases

Posted by Anne B. Hemenway on Wed, Jul 8, 2015 @ 13:07 PM

The Lawletter Vol 40 No 5

Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

     Workers' compensation claims are often straightforward where the worker has suffered a clear work-related injury in the jurisdiction in which the employer is located. Where a worker has been injured in a work-related accident while traveling in a different state for work, however, different jurisdictions impose specific jurisdictional restrictions notwithstanding the workers' compensation insurance contract. See McIlvaine Trucking, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (States), 810 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 2002) (holding that where a worker who regularly traveled to other states for work was injured in Pennsylvania, the parties' agreement to be bound only by the West Virginia Workers' Compensation Act was unenforceable as against Pennsylvania public policy, which requires in-state workers' injuries to be governed only by the Pennsylvania workers' compensation laws).

Read More

Topics: jurisdiction, workers' compensation, Anne Hemenway, jurisdictional restrictions, claims

CIVIL RIGHTS: Employment Discrimination—Same-Actor Inference

Posted by Dora S. Vivaz on Wed, Mar 18, 2015 @ 15:03 PM

Dora Vivaz, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

     Inferences have always played an important role in the analysis of discrimination cases, because direct evidence of discrimination is rare, and such cases, therefore, most often depend on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing circumstantial evidence sufficient to support an inference of discrimination. By the same token, the evidence may allow inferences that benefit the defendant.

     In the employment discrimination context, one such inference is the "same actor inference," which allows the factfinder to infer that when the person who took the adverse employment action against the plaintiff is the same person who hired the plaintiff, the adverse action was probably not based on unlawful discrimination. As the court noted in a recent case, there is a split amongst the circuits as to whether the inference is mandatory or permissive and as to whether it may be relied upon as a basis for summary judgment. See, e.g., Garrett v. Sw. Med. Clinic PC, No. 1:13-cv-634, 2014 WL 7330947 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 19, 2014) (text available only on Westlaw).

Read More

Topics: employment discrimination, Civil Rights Act, same-actor inference

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: Supreme Court Holds 2012 Recess Appointments to NLRB Invalid

Posted by Gale Burns on Tue, Aug 12, 2014 @ 13:08 PM

The Lawletter Vol 39 No 6

Read More

Topics: legal research, John Buckley, NLRB, constitutional law, Recess Appointments Clause, NLRB v. Canning, no presidential authority, includes intersession and intrasession recesses

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE: NLRB Proposed Rule for Notice Postings

Posted by Gale Burns on Mon, Feb 3, 2014 @ 12:02 PM

Dora Vivaz, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

Read More

Topics: Dora Vivaz, legal research, employment law, NLRB, posting notice rule, abandoned, board's purpose is dispute resolution, 4th Cir., U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, DC Cir., Nat'l Ass'n of Mfrs. v. NLRB

CIVIL RIGHTS: Does Title VII Permit Claims Against Supervisory Individuals in Their Official Capacities?

Posted by Gale Burns on Wed, Nov 6, 2013 @ 12:11 PM

The Lawletter Vol 38 No 8

Read More

Topics: Dora Vivaz, legal research, The Lawletter Vol 38 No 8, civil rights law, Title VII, liability on employers, claims on supervisory employee when government is, Stallone v. Camden County Tech. Schools. Bd. of Ed, DNJ, official capacity when government entity is not a, split in circuits

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Comprehensive Employment Policies: A Necessary Tool to Avoiding Damages and Liability

Posted by Gale Burns on Wed, Sep 4, 2013 @ 11:09 AM

The Lawletter Vol 38 No 6

John Buckley, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

The increasingly complex statutory and regulatory requirements imposed upon employers require that written policies be promulgated and maintained in order to avoid fines for noncompliance, exposure to liability from lawsuits, and punitive damages.  Many federal laws, and an increasing number of state laws, require that employers promulgate and maintain written policies.  Furthermore, it is no longer sufficient to simply pass out cookie‑cutter policies; to be effective, workplace policies must be precisely tailored and contain specific provisions required by the location of the workplace, the type of business involved, the number of individuals employed, and a host of other considerations. 

A properly drafted and implemented written policy can be a valuable tool for employers.  For
example, in EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2013), the court noted the rule that an employer may avoid liability for punitive damages based on the actions of managerial employees by simply showing that it had implemented an antidiscrimination policy.  Because the employer in that case had not made the modest investment in an adequate antidiscrimination policy, the court upheld an award of $200,000 in punitive damages. See also Dunlap v. Spec Pro, Inc., No. 11‑cv‑02451‑PAB‑MJW, 2013 WL 1397294 (D. Colo. Apr. 5, 2013) (to avail itself of the good‑faith compliance standard, and avoid vicarious liability for punitive damages in a Title VII action, an employer must (1) adopt antidiscrimination policies; (2) make a good-faith effort to educate its employees about these policies and the statutory prohibitions; and (3) make good-faith efforts to enforce an antidiscrimination policy).  

In addition to insulating employers from potentially devastating punitive damages, properly drafted policies can help employers avoid liability entirely.  In the following cases, employers were able to avoid liability for discrimination claims:  Zakrzewska v. New School, 598 F. Supp. 2d 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Chaloult v. Interstate Brands Corp., 540 F.3d 64, 74 (1st Cir. 2008); McPherson v. City of Waukegan, 379 F.3d 430 (7th Cir. 2004); Salazar v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 98 F. App'x 623 (9th Cir. 2004); Talamantes v. Berkeley County Sch. Dist., 340 F. Supp. 2d 684 (D.S.C. 2004).  In each of these cases, the employers had properly drafted, written policies prohibiting discrimination and setting out grievance procedures for resolving discrimination claims.  Although a properly drafted policy can enable an employer, in many cases, to obtain summary judgment in its favor, a deficient policy may negate certain defenses and enable a plaintiff to survive summary judgment.  Smith v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 202 F.3d 234, 245 (4th Cir. 2000).

In addition to policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment, employers should have written policies that include provisions covering wages and hours, benefits, leave, workplace safety, workplace conduct, and discipline.  Most employers should also consider policies covering Internet and email use, recordkeeping, drug and alcohol use, and immigration law compliance.

Read More

Topics: legal research, John Buckley, The Lawletter Vol 38 No 6, written employment policies, tailored with specific provisions, good-faith compliance standard includes antidiscri, antiharassment, and statutory provisions, grievance procedures, wages and hours, benefits, leave, workplace safety and conduct, discipline

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Florida Court Treats Independent Contractor as Employee for Purposes of Enforcing Covenant Not to Compete

Posted by Gale Burns on Tue, Apr 2, 2013 @ 16:04 PM

The Lawletter Vol 38 No 1

Charlene Hicks, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

One of the legal arenas in which individual rights are pitted directly against business interests comes into play when an individual employee signs an employment contract containing a covenant not to compete.  Not surprisingly, state courts are often called upon to referee disputes concerning the enforceability of such contracts.  In a recent proemployer decision, a Florida appellate court ruled that an individual's change in status from an "employee" to an "independent contractor" did not affect the terms of the noncompete agreement that the individual had previously signed.

In Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, 104 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012), the Anarkali Boutique ("Boutique") sought a temporary injunction against Nahomi Ortiz for violating a noncompete agreement that Ortiz had signed when she began employment in 2008.  This agreement stated, in relevant part:

In consideration for my at-will employment or continued at-will employment by [the company] and the compensation now and hereafter paid to me, I hereby agree as follows:

. . . .

I will not either during my employment with the Company or for a period of two (2) years after I am no longer employed by the Company, engage, as an employee, independent contractor, officer, director, or shareholder, in any employment, business, or activity that in any way competes with the business of the Company within a one-hundred (100) mile radius of any store, office, or facility of the Company. . . .

. . . .

Any subsequent change or changes in my duties, salary or compensation will not affect the validity or scope of this Agreement.

Id. at 1203.

In 2009, the Boutique began treating Ortiz as an independent contractor so that she would have the opportunity to earn more money through sales commissions.  In 2011, Ortiz left the Boutique and began operating her own business, performing the same services, within the restricted area.  In response, the Boutique filed a complaint for injunctive relief and a motion for temporary injunction against Ortiz.

As a defense against the motion, Ortiz argued that when the Boutique changed her status from employee to independent contractor in 2009, she ceased to be employed by the Boutique and the two-year restricted period set forth in the covenant not to compete began to run at that time.  The trial court agreed with Ortiz and denied the Boutique's motion for temporary injunction.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed.  In so doing, the appeals court relied upon the principle of contract construction that requires a court to examine the contract as a whole and to attempt to give effect to every provision.  According to the appeals court, the trial court contravened this principle by failing to give effect to the final sentence of the noncompete agreement quoted above.

Read More

Topics: legal research, employment law, The Lawletter Vol 38 No 1, Charlene Hicks, covenant not to compete, balance of interests, employee becomes independent contractor, status does not change terms of initial contract, enforceability, Anarkali Boutique, Inc. v. Ortiz, FL Dist. Ct. App., applying principles of contract construction

EMPLOYMENT LAW: The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Posted by Gale Burns on Mon, Jan 28, 2013 @ 13:01 PM

The Lawletter Vol 37 No 11

Read More

Topics: legal research, employment law, John Buckley, The Lawletter Vol 37 No 11, American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, extended some Bush-era tax cuts, SS withholding increased, increased credit for employer-provided child-care, education assistance, and transit/carpool benefits, extension of federally funded unemployment compens

EMPLOYMENT LAW: New NLRB Rule Mandates Posting of Employee Union Rights

Posted by Gale Burns on Tue, Sep 11, 2012 @ 14:09 PM

The Lawletter Vol 36 No 3

Read More

Topics: legal research, employment law, The Lawletter Vol 36 No 3, John Buckley, NLRB rule, posting of employee rights to organize a union, union rights

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Overtime Compensation: Factual Specificity Required to State a Claim in the Wake of Twombley and Iqbal

Posted by Gale Burns on Tue, Sep 11, 2012 @ 14:09 PM

The Lawletter Vol 36 No 4

Read More

Topics: Dora Vivaz, legal research, The Lawletter Vol 36 No 4, overtime compensation, wage-and-hour claim, what level of factual specificity required, inclusion of nonconclusory factual allegations

Seven ways outsourcing your legal research can empower your practice