<img src="//bat.bing.com/action/0?ti=5189112&amp;Ver=2" height="0" width="0" style="display:none; visibility: hidden;">

    EMPLOYMENT LAW LEGAL RESEARCH BLOG

    Nadine Roddy

    Recent Posts

    AGE DISCRIMINATION—PUBLIC EMPLOYERS

    Posted by Nadine Roddy on Thu, Dec 27, 2018 @ 12:12 PM

    Nadine Roddy—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

                The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") applies to all public employers, including those with fewer than 20 employees, a unanimous Supreme Court held in its first merits decision of the October 2018 term.  Thus, the 20-employee minimum that applies to private employers does not apply to a state or its subdivisions. The 8-0 decision, Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, ___ S. Ct. ___, 202 L. Ed. 2d 262 (2018), resolves a split of authority between the Ninth Circuit on one hand and the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits on the other.

                The case arose when a fire district in Arizona, faced with a budget shortfall, laid off its two oldest full-time firefighters—Fire Captains who were aged 46 and 54. Not surprisingly, the firefighters brought suit against the fire district for age discrimination. In seeking to dismiss the suit, the fire district argued that it was too small to qualify as an “employer” under the ADEA. The district court agreed, granting summary judgment for the fire district, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the 20-employee minimum that applies to private employers does not apply to a state or its subdivisions.

    Read More

    Topics: Nadine Roddy, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, public employers, 20-employee minimum, state and political subdivisions

    Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Unfair Competition

    Posted by Nadine Roddy on Mon, Nov 26, 2018 @ 11:11 AM

    Nadine Roddy—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group
    John Buckley—President, National Legal Research Group

                A federal district court sitting in Pennsylvania has held that an employer may proceed with its unfair competition suit asserting contract and tort claims against a former employee and the employee’s current employer. The employer adequately stated claims of common-law breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition against the employee, and of aiding and abetting the same against the competitor. However, the employer’s claim of tortious interference with prospective contractual relationship against the employee would be dismissed because the complaint failed to allege a sufficient likelihood of a prospective contract. Neopart Transit, LLC v. CBM N.A., Inc., 314 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2018).

    Read More

    Topics: employment law, John Buckley, Nadine Roddy, unfair competition, prospective contract

    New Call-to-action
    Free Hour of Legal Research  for New Clients
    Seven ways outsourcing your legal research can empower your practice