Distress Terminations of Underfunded Pension Plans
October 28, 2005
Recent bankruptcies in the airline industry have highlighted the liabilities associated with underfunded defined benefit pension plans. Debtors seeking to restructure and reorganize into viable entities have to make difficult business decisions related to their sponsorship of defined benefit pension plans. The future funding costs and investment risks associated with continued sponsorship of underfunded defined
CA Supreme Court Expands Protections for Workers
October 05, 2005
In a pair of recent decisions, the California Supreme Court has significantly widened protections for workers claiming harassment and discrimination under the state's Fair Employment and Housing Act. Taken together, these decisions give California employees protections from job discrimination far beyond those in any other state.
Circuit Split Develops on FMLA Waivers
October 05, 2005
Almost any employer providing exit pay beyond that to which an employee is otherwise entitled expects a release of rights in return. Most waiver agreements cover claims that could be raised under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the FMLA, as well as state anti-discrimination laws. But it just got harder to get a valid release of FMLA claims in the Fourth Circuit.
S. Ct. Authorizes Disparate Impact Age Discrimination Claims
October 03, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In <i>Smith v. Jackson, Miss.</i>, the Court held that employees aged 40 and over can assert claims for age discrimination under the ADEA based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy, even in the absence of discriminatory intent on the employers' part. In so doing, the Court reconciled a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal and aligned its view concerning the scope of the ADEA with its view of the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to prior Court decisions, permits employees to allege discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy. An increase in the amount of litigation in respect to these types of claims under the ADEA will likely result from the <i>Smith</i> opinion.
The Progressive Lawyer
August 31, 2005
In March of this year, in Part One of this article, we discussed the importance of the initial pendente lite application in introducing the parties to the judge and setting the tone for the balance of the case. The mandate that we provide judges with sound, hard evidence at the <i>pendente lite</i> phase -- in order to enable the courts to deal fairly with both sides pending the submission of final proofs -- was heavily stressed.
Age Discrimination Ruling: Analysis
August 30, 2005
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision concerning the Age Discrimination In Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In <i>Smith v. Jackson, Miss.</i>, the Court held that employees aged 40 and over can assert claims for age discrimination under the ADEA based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy, even in the absence of discriminatory intent on the employers' part. In so doing, the Court reconciled a split in the federal circuit courts of appeal and aligned its view concerning the scope of the ADEA with its view of the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to prior Court decisions, permits employees to allege discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex and national origin based on the disparate impact of a facially neutral employment policy. Because employees located in the geographic areas covered by the federal circuits whose courts of appeal formerly prohibited the assertion of such claims under the ADEA can now assert disparate impact claims under the ADEA, the Smith opinion will likely result in increased litigation under the ADEA in respect of these types of claims.
Oregon Marriage Decision Has Impact on Employers
August 30, 2005
On April 14, 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court held in <i>Li</i> and <i>Kennedy v. Oregon</i> that the roughly 3000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County are not valid. The Supreme Court's decision may change the obligations and opportunities for employers, depending on the nature of the employer and the decisions the employer has previously made regarding whether or not to treat certain partners of employees as if they were spouses.
