Mobile Personal Injury Lawyer - Workplace Discrimination

Are you about to sign an employment contract?

Troy Schwant — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:50:30 GMT

More and more companies are requiring their prospective employees to enter into employment contracts, and in this economy, most prospective employees would sign anything if it meant they were able to get a job. Employers know this, and they will exploit it unless employees attempt to protect themselves.

Now I understand that in this economy, a job is valuable and unfortunately scarce, and if someone has to agree to an arbitration clause, jury waiver provision, and a covenant not to compete, they will do it, because at the end of the day, we have to put food on the table for our family, and if it means signing an employment contract that may have significant pit falls, so be it.

If you are one of the lucky individuals to have employment options, let me strongly urge you to have an attorney review any employment contract that you are considering. Having your employment contract reviewed, should not take more than a few hours, and you will be able to rest easy knowing that your interests are being protected.

Our firm routinely reviews employment contracts for our clients, and we think it is as important as having a will drafted and owning uninsured motorists coverage.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

Sexual Harassment suit allowed to go forward against Home Depot...

Troy Schwant — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:49:27 GMT

The 11th Circuit Court of appeals reversed a granting of a summary Judgment by a Federal District Court Judge in favor of Home Depot.

Congratulations to the attorneys on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and good luck at trial.

blog.al.com/live/2009/07/appeals_court_allows_home_depo.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

Supreme Court finds in favor of firefighters in controversial discrimination suit...

Troy Schwant — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:59:53 GMT

In a 5-4 decision the United States Supreme Court found in favor of the white firefighters in their discrimination lawsuit against the city of New Haven Connecticut.

This decision will certainly be discussed at length over the next few days, and may have a great impact on future affirmative action type cases.

Here is CNN's report on the ruling.

www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/29/supreme.court.discrimination/index.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Troy Schwant

Whistle Blowers And The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Pete Mackey — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 03:16:19 GMT

A former employee of McDonalds has filed a “whistle—blower” lawsuit against the company alleging misrepresentions relating to executive compensation in its 2007 proxy statement. The claim is brought under the whistle—blower protections provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That employee, Lisa Bridges, was the senior director of compensation and she claims in her lawsuit that she refused to certify the accuracy of the executive compensation because she knew they false. Her claims included allegations of non-disclosed payments for Tim Fenton, the McDonalds’ President of Asia Operations and Mike Roberts, former President of the company:

Bridges claims that McDonald's should have -- but didn't -- disclose that it had paid for two country club memberships for Tim Fenton, president of the company's Asian operations. The memberships in the two Asian clubs were worth nearly $3,000, the suit claims.

She also claims McDonald's misrepresented some of the $97,384 it paid for "home leave" trips for Asia-based Fenton and his family.

Amid other allegations, Bridges said McDonald's mischaracterized payments made to former president Mike Roberts, who was ousted in 2006. She claims McDonald's "disguised" more than $10 million it paid to Roberts as salary and incentive compensation, acting as if he was a "transitional employee" though he'd been terminated and was no longer providing services.

It will be interesting watching this case unfold. The whistle blower protection provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is quite broad and, given that the act was only passed in 2002, there has been very little case law interpreting it. If it is interpreted broadly, a lot of upper level management throughout the United States industrial complex should be concerned.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

The Ledbetter Act: Can Claims Arising Before It Became Law Go Forward?

Pete Mackey — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:02:37 GMT

Since President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, lawyers and legal commentators have been exploring the boundaries of this new law. The question is – can people file lawsuits for wage discrimination violations that were committed by their employer prior to the signing of the Act?

The answer is yes. According to the wording of the bill itself, it is to take effect as if it acted on May 28, 2007 (the day before the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire’s & Rubber Co.). Of course, you can rest assured that there will be all kinds of attacks on what claims can be litigated and which have been filed too late. Those issues are beyond the scope of this post.

I simply want to stress that you do not want to give up on a claim of what you believe to be wage discrimination simply because it occurred before the act was passed. If you believe you have been discriminated against, act promptly. Contact a lawyer who specializes in employment law. If you cannot find one locally, you can contact the National Employment Lawyers Association (“NELA”) for a referral. Stand up for your rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

EEOC Whistleblower Protection - The Supreme Court Says Yes To His Employer

Pete Mackey — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:33:16 GMT

A unanimous Supreme Court held last week that an employee who provides information to his employer as part of a discrimination investigation is protected against retaliation for doing so. While Title VII has always protected employees who opposed unlawful employment practices or participated in an investigation of an unlawful employment practice. The lower courts had found that the providing information in an internal investigations was not ""opposing" an unlawful employment practice. The Supreme Court said otherwise. Predictably, Management saw the dark side. Management lawyer James Burns of Reed, Smith said this ruling would increase the number of retaliation claims and would make employers more careful about which employees they spoke with:

"An employer who might otherwise say, 'We have to conduct a thorough and prompt investigation, so let's talk to everyone in the department,' might now pause and think everyone interviewed will be engaged in protected activity by speaking to the extent they disclose something that reasonably appears to violate the law," he said. "So any adverse action taken against somebody who 'testifies' will give rise to a retaliation claim if the adverse action occurs relatively soon after the investigation."

Employers may want to forgo interviewing an employee with prior or current job performance problems, he said. But, he added, "I think the importance of conducting the investigation outweighs the risk of retaliation claims. Potential witnesses on the bubble may not be useful."

What that view fails to take into account is the positive side of this ruling. Now, it will be easier for companies to get to the truth - employees will speak more freely if they are not concerned about losing their job for doing so. The whole theory behind Title VII is that employers should thoroughly investigate employment claims and this ruling furthers that end.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

The Fair Pay Act: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Has No Shame

Pete Mackey — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:00:41 GMT

Yesterday, I was forwarded an e-mail from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warning me that trial attorneys are heading to Washington looking for a handout. I wondered what the Chamber thought about the real Bailout, the one that a lot of its member banks and financial institutions have been wallowing in. What does the Chamber propose be done about the rogue fat cats who got rich while their companies drowned in red ink? What strings should be attached to the bailout money? Of course, they don’t address those issues. They do propose more tort reform as a cure all for business ills. As for the economic crisis – the Chamber says to cut business income taxes.

What exactly is this “handout” they are talking about? Are trial attorneys actually seeking to get bailout checks? OF COURSE NOT – they are urging the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, passed by the Senate on Thursday. They want to make sure that women get a fair chance to bring equal pay claims when they are paid less than a similarly situated male employee. The Chamber’s spin is shameless hypocrisy. I wonder how the executives at the Chamber would explain this Act to their mothers, daughters, aunts and grandmothers? I will bet that they won’t tell them that the free flow of business is more important than stopping pay discrimination against women. And if they will, heaven help them … Please - CoC - weigh in. Tell us why this is a trial attorney's handout. Explain why a company should get away with paying women less.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Pete Burns — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:13:31 GMT

Senators will vote on the Lilly Ledbetter bill when it comes for a final Senate vote in the very near future. The bill supports equal pay for equal work by removing a loophole that has allowed widespread abuse of women and minorities in the workplace. The loophole opened in May of 2007 when the Supreme Court ruled against Lilly Ledbetter a former employee of the Goodyear plant in Gadsden, Alabama. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZO.html She had worked for 19 years making $6,500 less than her lowest paid male counterpart. The jury found that the disparity was based upon her sex and awarded her back pay and damages. The United States Supreme Court ruled that even though Ms. Ledbetter did not know of the disparity she waited to long to complain. She could not recover because she did not file a claim within180 days of the first decision to pay her less.

The pending bill agrees with Justice Ginsburg’s dissent which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer: Title VII claims should not be forfeited before the victim can reasonably discover the discrimination. In the real world most employees are not privy to the wages of others so many lose their remedy before they learn of the violation.

It is hard to find a “good” reason to oppose a bill that will protect workers from discrimination based on race, age, disability or gender. The only justification I have heard so far comes from two groups comprised primarily of employers: The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. They claim to oppose the bill because it would lead to more lawsuits. Undoubtedly they are also motivated by the realization that if the bill fails the discriminatory employers will get to keep the wages they shorted the workers.

It will be interesting to see which Senators conclude that fear of an increase in lawsuits is a good reason to oppose this remedial legislation. Do they really think it is better for America to allow employers to profit from discrimination than to allow the victims to have their day in court?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Burns

The Ledbetter Bill Nears Passage

Pete Mackey — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:07:54 GMT

The Lilly Ledbetter Act, along with the Paycheck Fairness Act, was passed by the House last Friday and the Ledbetter Act could reach the Senate as early as next week. The Ledbetter Act increases the time that employees have to file equal pay claims and the Paycheck Fairness Act provides gender based equal pay claims with the same damages that other discrimination statutes provide.

Predictably, the conservative opposition characterized these bills as trouble for business:

It sends a signal, said Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, "that the first substantive order of business is not job creation or tax relief but rather a trial lawyer boondoggle that can put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy."

Rep. McKeon, do you really mean to say that these bills are bad for this country, or are you just posturing? You did not mean to suggest that employees should be deprived of justice because their employer was able to hide the fact from them for 181 days, did you? Shouldn't an employer who pays one group of employees less than another group for performing the same job duties pay for breaking the law? Do you really believe that the victims of gender based equal pay claims shouldn't recover the same damages that Congress has previously decided that other victims of discrimination can? What aspect of these bills constitutes a "boondoggle?" I have sent you an e-mail inviting you to read this post. Please give us your thoughts.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Pete Mackey