Pre-employment testing has always been risky business, but a recent high-dollar jury verdict has sharpened the focus on such testing. In the latter months of 2006, the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals considered and affirmed a $3.4 million verdict in favor of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a case involving an employer's efforts to reduce workplace injuries through pre-employment testing.

Features

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

Features

In the old days, decisions made by executives and directors in the board room often were cloaked with a veil of legitimacy. Now, however, these decisions are under constant surveillance and scrutiny from outsiders and are even vulnerable to leaks from insiders. As executives and directors are thrust into the media and legal forefront, not only do they face potential personal liability for their decisions, but the corporations themselves face liability for their actions.

Features

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case of great importance to employers, <i>Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &amp; Rubber Co., Inc.</i> It will decide when the statute of limitations begins to run under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) ('Title VII') for certain types of disparate pay claims.

In September 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a retailer with physical store locations may be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'), the Unrue Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 51(b)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 54.1(a)(1)), if its Web site is not accessible to the blind. <i>Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp.</i>, 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the ADA does not impose an affirmative duty on companies to make Web sites accessible to the disabled, the Target decision may represent the tip of a looming iceberg.

Recent rulings of importance to your practice.

Features

Employers go to great lengths and expense to reduce their potential exposure to employment-related claims. Most employers implement policies to address the myriad and growing federal, state, and local employment laws; regularly conduct employee EEO training; hire qualified human resources professionals and in-house attorneys with expertise in employment law; and regularly seek advice and assistance from outside counsel concerning these prophylactic measures. The purpose of this article is to apprise readers of a fast, simple, and inexpensive way to reduce their exposure to certain types of employment-related claims through the inclusion of an express waiver ('Waiver') in an employment application or other document signed by applicants or employees. The Waiver contractually reduces to six (6) months the time period within which certain types of employment-related claims must be filed and waives any statute of limitations to the contrary, thereby significantly reducing the number of timely-filed claims and, consequently, the employer's potential exposure.

Features

As many of you know, there are various insurance policies available to protect against employment-related claims. Although some policies, such as employment practices liability (EPL) policies, cover a variety of claims, many cover only specific claims to the exclusion of all others. A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit highlights some of the interesting issues that can arise in resolving employment claims covered by an insurance policy.