Workers' Compensation News

Labor Board: Hospital in Violation
The National Labor Relations Board has filed a complaint against Grane Healthcare, alleging unfair labor practices at a Cambria County hospital. Based on charges by the Service Employees International Union and the Laborers International Union of North America, the board alleges Grane violated labor law by refusing to bargain with the unions, as required when a company hired a majority of workers from a predecessor unionist operation. Based on SEIU's charges, the board also alleges the company violated labor law by not hiring a nurse because of prior union activism to discourage other workers from similar activism. The board also alleges the company violated labor law by training licensed practical nurses to establish and maintain intravenous lines without negotiating the additional duty. The board wants to force the company to bargain with the union, provide back pay to the employee it didn't hire and rescind the unilateral intravenous charges. The company argues it didn't hire the activist because of poor references, and by training LPNs to establish IV lines, the company is violating no agreement because the previous county deal with SEIU didn't require collective bargaining.

Court: No Choice of Law On Independent Contractor Status
In a significant victory for employment plaintiffs, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held that employers cannot use choice-of-law contracts to avoid California labor regulations. While workplace contracts may be subject to out-of-state law, actual workplace terms and conditions affecting workers in California are governed by the state's statutes, the unanimous three-judge panel ruled. The decision stems from claims brought by three California freight-truck drivers who said they were improperly classified as independent contractors and denied employee benefits, including overtime, business-related expenses and meal compensation. Employers required the workers to sign contracts acknowledging their status as independent contractors subject to the labor laws of Texas. "While the contracts will likely be used as evidence to prove or disprove the statutory claims, the claims do not arise out of the contract, involve the interpretation of any contract terms, or otherwise require there to be a contract," the panel found. The plaintiffs' "claims arose under the Labor Code, a California regulatory scheme, and consequently, California law should apply to define the boundaries of liability under that scheme." The case involves the issue of employee classification. Plaintiffs lawyers say that multistate companies have increasingly tried to designate workers as independent contractors to avoid California's perceived worker-friendly regulations on overtime and meal-and-rest periods. The 9th Circuit panel went on to hold that under California law, a jury trial would be necessary to determine whether the plaintiff truck drivers were properly designated as independent contractors.

Prison Elevator that Nearly Killed Worker to Return
A malfunctioning elevator at Westmoreland County Prison - shut down since a guard was nearly crushed to death in it earlier this year - could soon be back in service. The elevator malfunctioned last year and dropped as a correctional officer was on board, nearly severing his legs. The elevator, which was the sole means by which civilians were taken to visiting areas, was put out of commission indefinitely until repairs were authorized and new controls were installed.

BP Says Oil Spill Costs Climb to $3.5 Billion
BP has announced that the cost of dealing with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico have risen to $3.5 billion. The oil company said the new figures include nearly $165 million paid to settle individual claims. BP has received 105,000 claims so far and made more than 52,000 payments. The company says it is still too early to estimate the final costs and compensation.

Lifesaving Cancer Drugs May Put Workers' Lives at Risk
The same powerful chemotherapy drugs that have saved hundreds of thousands of patients' lives for decades have at the same time potentially taken a deadly toll on the hospital and clinic workers who handled them. Thousands of health care workers who are chronically exposed to chemotherapy agents on the job for years before there were any safety guidelines in place. Now, some of those workers are being diagnosed with cancers that occupational health specialists say could be linked to that exposure. A just-completed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, 10 years in the making and the largest to date, confirms that chemo continues to contaminate the workspaces where it's used, and in some cases is still being found in the urine of those who handle it, despite knowledge of safety precautions. Though the Occupational Safety and Health Association have classified chemo agents as "hazardous drugs" - suspected to cause cancer, miscarriages, birth defects or other serious health consequences - OSHA does not regulator exposure to these toxic substances in the workplace, despite evidence of ongoing contamination and exposures.

Child Care Worker Claims Center Wanted Her to Falsify Records
A former employee of a Chester County child care center has filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging the center fired her after she refused to falsify company records to feign compliance with state law. She claims that company did not have background clearances for some new employees who had direct contact with children and that the center's management told her to falsify records before an upcoming inspection by the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare took place. Under Pennsylvania law, if an employee is fired because they were told by management to break the law and they refused and the employee notified other managers about the incident, they have a cause of action. According to her lawsuit, after being hired in 2003, she received positive feedback about her performance and was well-liked by management, her staff and parents. However, when she and her supervisor discovered that required background clearances for new employees had not been received within 30 days, her supervisor instructed her - both orally and in writing - to falsify personnel records so that the violation would not be identified by the state agent. Concerned by the request, which are misdemeanors under state law, her regional manager advised her to report the incident to the center's owner.  The owner was outraged - not at the lapses, but that the plaintiff had shared the information. Shortly thereafter, her regional manager was fired and she was forced to sign a newly adopted "Employee Protection Policy." She was later terminated for not collecting enough of the new policy forms, which she claims was impossible in the amount of time given. Her replacement has not been able to obtain the forms, and the supervisor who initially asked her to falsify records has been reinstated to a supervisory role. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

Ohio Mayor: No Known Issues at Roof Collapse Site
An Ohio mayor says there were no known problems with the roof that partially fell in at a sauerkraut factory, killing one worker and injuring three. The mayor said the collapse was probably a "freak thing." The roof caved as workers with a welding company were replacing support columns inside a small building at the company, which makes sauerkraut and bottles ketchup and barbecue sauce. A 35-year-old employee was crushed, trapped by debris and pronounced dead at the scene. The injured included a man whose legs were pinned for about four hours.

Appeals Court Rejects Pratt & Whitney Jobs Move
A federal appeals court has rejected a plan by jet engine maker Pratt & Whitney to move 1,000 jobs out of Connecticut. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a federal judge's ruling that said the subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. failed to make every reasonable effort to avoid shutting down two engine repair plants in the state. In their decision, the judges said an injunction against the jobs move was supported by her findings that Pratt & Whitney breached its contract with the union.

Pension Disability Award Upheld
A Luzerne County judge has upheld an arbitrator's decision granting pension and disability benefits to a former police officer. In 2007, the officer filed a grievance concerning the time and amount of pension disability benefits awarded by the borough. He sought the benefits after he was diagnosed with a heart condition. He and the borough could not agree on the time a proper application was submitted for him to collect the benefits, with the borough alleging that he requested benefits in 2007, while the actual application was not made until 2008. In the arbitrator's determination, it was decided that the 2008 time period constituted the proper date of the commencement of benefits, but that the officer was entitled to heart and lung benefits from the time of his diagnosis in 2007 until the start of his pension disability benefits. The borough, however, filed a motion to modify or vacate the arbitration award, citing that the arbitrator "exceeded power" and that "irregularity caused the rendition of an unjust or inequitable award."

Imperial Sugar and OSHA Settled Georgia Explosion Case
Imperial Sugar has reached a settlement with federal regulators seeking to fine the company for safety violations after a 2008 explosion at its Georgia refinery killed 14 workers. It has been nearly two years since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed $8.7 million in fines against the company for more than 200 safety violations at its plants in Georgia and Louisiana. The company contested the fines and citations, leading to long settlement talks. The 2008 explosion killed 14 workers and injured 36. Investigators determined that dangerous levels of sugar dust accumulated inside the plant and ignited like gunpowder.

Many Deckhands Lack Documentation for Spill Claim
Deckhands and laborers who get paid in cash and don't have any way to prove losses in the BP claims process could be the hidden victims of the spill. Attorneys and aid workers say there are a variety of reasons some people may not come forward to make a claim - some lack tax returns and other documentation they need, while others are overwhelmed with the paperwork. Some don't want to admit that they cannot read, and others worry that their failure to pay taxes on past cash income might get them in legal trouble.

Court Finds Novartis Drug Reps Not Exempt from Overtime Law
Current and former sales representatives for Novartis Pharmaceuticals are not exempt from qualifying for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. Adopting an interpretation of the law urged by the U.S. Department of Labor, the circuit reinstated the claims of some 2,500 plaintiffs who argued they should be paid overtime for working in excess of 40 hours per week. One lawyer for the plaintiffs estimated that damages could be in the area of $100 million. The ruling represents the second major loss for Novartis in New York courts. Earlier, a jury found the company discriminated against women employees in pay, promotion and on the basis of pregnancy. Compensatory damages were awarded for 12 name plaintiffs, which are a template for possibly thousands more, and the company was hit with $250 million in punitive damages. The wage-and-hour ruling covers employees of Novartis in New York, California and other states who brought suits that were consolidated in New York. The plaintiffs claim they were unpaid by being denied time and a half for each hour worked over 40 hours a week at various times between 2000 and 2007. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires that employees be paid overtime for more than 40 hours worked per week but it sets out an exemption for "outside" salespeople and "administrative" employees. Novartis claimed these exemptions from the act and from similar state law provisions in moving for summary judgment.

Gulf States Seek More Mental Health Money from BP
Officials in Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida and Alabama have asked BP for millions of dollars to pay for mental health outreach and service programs related to the oil spill disaster. Mississippi asked BP for $10 million to create a grant fund that can be tapped by public and private clinics that are beginning to see a slight increase in patients complaining of anxiety, anger and depression. The agency said another $10 could be sought later, depending on need. Alabama's mental health agency submitted a proposal seeking an immediate $5.7 million that would go toward a centralized call center to help people dealing with stress and other symptoms navigate the system to care. Alabama also asked for $20 million each year for up to the next five years. The oil spill disaster has taken an emotional toll on residents who have lost jobs in the fishing, hospitality and tourism industries. Louisiana is still waiting to hear from BP after twice asking for $10 million to cover six months of outreach and services, while Florida has asked for $1.7 million to cover 90 days of service in eight coastal counties.

Ukrainian Brothers Charged with Slave Labor in Philadelphia
After a long journey from Ukraine through the heat of Mexico and into Philadelphia, migrants hoping for a better life with jobs promising $500 a month cleaning stores were instead beaten, kicked, threatened and held in virtual bondage, authorities say. Five Ukrainian brothers are accused of staffing their cleaning businesses with illegal workers kept in "involuntary servitude." The brothers found the mostly male migrants in Ukraine, and lured them with the promise of a legitimate job, food and housing. Instead, they worked 16-hour days cleaning retail and grocery stores - including Target, Kmart, Wal-Mart and Safeway - for $100 a month. They slept five or six to a room, and their travel documents were taken away as they were shuttled between jobs in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and Washington, D.C. The crimes are alleged to have occurred between 2000 and 2007. Out of the 30 migrants brought to Philadelphia, at least eight are cooperating with the government.

Pennsylvania Ex-Trooper Sues Over Firing
A former Pennsylvania state trooper claims that her superiors forced her either to resign or break up with her boyfriend after he stole MP3 players from a Radio Shack and used her car as a getaway vehicle while she was sleeping in the front seat. In a recently filed federal civil rights lawsuit against three of her former superiors, she claims that she was forced to resign because of her boyfriend's criminal activities while two white female colleagues whose paramours also had criminal records were not. The suit says that in early 2007, she and her boyfriend of three years were out looking at homes when she fell asleep in the car while he stopped at a Radio Shack, where he swiped "several" MP3 players. She claims that she didn't wake up or learn of the theft until local police pulled over the couple's car. The suit also claims that it was only during the investigation that she learned that her boyfriend had a prior record from a conviction when he was 18. She claims that while she was pregnant with her boyfriend's child, her supervisor sent her an order to end her relationship. She refused, was suspended for 30 days and filed a grievance. She was then "summoned into an interrogation room" where one of her supervisors told her that if she didn't resign, she'd be court-martialed and lose all her benefits. Scared, she resigned. She is seeking more than $150,000 in damages from three of her then-superiors.

Former Wal-Mart Janitors Denied Class Action Status in Labor Practices Suit
A federal judge has declined to give final class action to a suit by former Wal-Mart janitors over the labor practices of the world's largest retailer. The judge found that because the plaintiffs worked for a variety of Wal-Mart contractors around the country - not for the company directly - they could not show they were "similarly situated" for class action purposes. The 114 putative class members worked in 180 stores in 33 states for 70 different contractors and subcontractors for varying hours and wages. The lack of uniformity extended to their works schedules, how often they were paid, whether taxes were withheld, the duration of their employment and whether they worked for the contractor at other stores in addition to Wal-Mart. The factual differences arising from the multiple contractual agreements would also affect whether a particular worker would be deemed a Wal-Mart employee for purposes of federal hour and wage laws, a determination that turns on factors like the degree of control Wal-Mart had over their work. The suit was filed in the wake of a coordinated raid by federal immigration authorities on Wal-Mart stores around the country in 2003 that turned up hundreds of undocumented workers. The suit alleged that Wal-Mart exploited the workers' undocumented status, inducing them - through contractors - to put in seven-day work weeks at low pay with no overtime, no weekends off and no sick days, vacations, medical coverage or workers' compensation. The plaintiffs alleged that the contractors, with the knowledge and approval of Wal-Mart, routinely hired illegal immigrants to work long hours, housed them in squalid quarters, paid them less than minimum wage and even locked them in Wal-Mart stores overnight.

SEC to Pay $775,000 to Fired Staff Attorney
The Securities and Exchange commission has agreed to pay a former staff attorney $755,000 to settle his claims that the agency wrongly fired him in retaliation for his complaints that higher-ups were botching the 2005 case against Pequot Capital Management, a once-giant hedge fund. He accused the SEC's former director of enforcement of throwing up roadblocks during his investigation into allegations that the hedge fund and its chairman were engaging in insider trading. He also claimed the SEC director had tipped off lawyers for a possible witness in the investigation about some of the evidence the agency had obtained. In his suit, he complained that the SEC tacked on an unfavorable evaluation just before his firing to justify the move, and that the evaluation clashed with the agency's otherwise positive evaluations of his work. The agency fired him while he was on vacation and dropped the investigation a year later. However, the SEC recently announced a $28 million settlement with the hedge fund over charges that it engaged in insider trading. The $755,000 is meant to compensate him for more than four years worth of salary he would have earned at the agency had he continued working there.

Judge OKs Deal for 9/11 Responders
Despite mixed emotions, most of the 9/11 responders who appeared at a daylong "fairness hearing" in federal court said they favored a deal that would end their seven-year legal fight over the toxic fallout produced by the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge signed off on the massive lawsuit settlement, clearing the way for final approval by the plaintiffs themselves. The judge had given his preliminary approval to a settlement that would resolve suits filed by nearly 10,000 police officers, firefighters and construction workers suing the city over their exposure to toxic ash. The settlement would pay $625 million to $712.5 million, depending on how many people take the deal. At the hearing, the lawyers who reached the settlement after lengthy negotiations urged the plaintiffs to accept it.

Nurse's Lawsuit Over Methadone Use Moves Forward
A nurse who has been denied a nursing license because she takes methadone can sue the state licensing bureau for refusing to issue her a license, a federal judge has ruled. In his order, he denied a motion to dismiss the suit against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its Department of State and its Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. The suit states that the plaintiff can't work as a nurse unless she is licensed, and she can't get that license because of a "secret" policy of refusing to license a nurse who is in a methadone maintenance program. She claims to suffer from a "chronic opioid drug dependency," and says she has been on a methadone maintenance treatment program since 2004. The suit says her drug problem is a disability that is being treated with methadone. Because the "secret" policy bars anyone taking methadone from getting a license, the suit claims the unwritten policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apparent Suicide Shows Oil Spill's Emotional Toll
A charter fishing boat captain for more than two decades committed suicide in the aftermath of the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. After his fishing grounds closed, he took a job with BP's cleanup crew before shooting himself in the wheelhouse of his boat. His friends see the tragedy as a clear sign of the BP spill's hidden psychological toll on the Gulf Coast, an awful feeling of helplessness that descends on people used to hard work and independence. Around the gulf, social service providers are dealing with a rising tide of mental health crises. From past disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, health experts say they expect a wave of physical health problems, such as high blood pressure and heart disease - but they also expect subtler problems as people absorb the spill's impact on their lives: depression, anxiety, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic issues.

Gulf Coast Residents Unsure If Claims Taxed
People up and down the Gulf Coast - already reeling from the oil spill disaster - are surprised and frustrated to find out that the Internal Revenue Service may take a chunk of the payments BP is providing to help them stay afloat. Many were already angry about how long the oil giant took to cut the checks, and when they got the money, they spent it fast. Accountants have been trying to nail down the implications for thousands of taxpayers after BP created a $20 billion disaster fund and provide another $100 million for oil workers who lose their jobs because of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Tax experts say all income is taxable under federal law unless specific exemptions are approved by Congress or the Treasury Department, but neither has acted on oil spill damage claims. The IRS has not commented on whether exemptions would be made, citing a policy of not answers questions on specific tax issues. Adding to the confusion, the official charged with overseeing the Independent Claims Facility announced that it hasn't been determined if the payouts will be considered taxable income. 

High Court Restricts Judges' Role in Deciding Arbitration Fairness
Continuing a strong pro-arbitration bent, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it more difficult for consumers and employees to challenge the fairness of arbitration agreements in court. The justices divided in holding that an arbitrator - not a district court - will decide whether an arbitration agreement as a whole is unconscionable if the agreement explicitly delegates that issue to the arbitrator and the consumer or employee has failed to challenge the specific delegation clause. The case stemmed from a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed in 2007. Before a Rent-a-Center account manager was fired, he signed an arbitration agreement that covered claims of discrimination - a condition of his employment. The agreement also stated that the arbitrator would have exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of the agreement. The latter part of the agreement was the delegation clause, which was deemed an "additional, antecedent agreement" to arbitrate a "gateway," or threshold issue. The Federal Arbitration Act "operates on this additional arbitration agreement just as it does on any other." But the employee's arguments only challenged the validity of the agreement as a whole. "Nowhere in his opposition to Rent-a-Center's motion to compel arbitration did he even mention the delegation provision," and he subsequently raised it for the first time in the Supreme Court, where it was "too late."

Did Firm Discriminate Against Older Secretaries?
A former law firm secretary in her early 60s alleges that the firm discriminated against older secretaries and those who had taken family or medical leave when the firm laid off at least eight secretaries in 2008. Another secretary made similar claims in a suit filed last year. The first secretary worked at the firm for 23 years and received several commendations for her work. However, at a gathering to commemorate her 20th year with the firm, a supervisor made a joke about her diagnosis with attention deficit disorder, telling the group that all the items in the firm's lost and found belonged to the secretary. Serious complaints about her work arose in 2006 when the firm began planning staff layoffs two years in advance. She claims she was also unfairly targeted because she took four months off to care for her ailing father in 2007. Both secretaries allege that the same month they and others were laid off, the firm promoted five partners. Her lawsuit brings the number of federal discrimination suits against the firm to four. In addition to the two secretaries, a former document specialist claims the firm refused to pay her overtime, denied her medical leave and fired her because she is black. The final complaint was filed last year by a former associate who claims firm higher-ups sexually harassed her and denied her promotion to partner because she is a lesbian.

High Court Finds Hundreds of Labor Cases Improperly Decided
The vacancy-plagued National Labor Relations Board did not have authority to issue nearly 600 decisions in the last two years with only two board members, the Supreme Court has ruled. The Court upended the NLRB's attempt, dating back to 2007, to continue functioning when it foresaw that its membership was in imminent danger of dropping from four to two. The immediate effect of the Court's decision will be to return to the board an estimated 75 to 80 cases pending in the lower courts that are challenging the legitimacy of two-member board decisions. Another 500 or so cases involve appeals not raising the two-member board issue, cases where the parties already have complied with a board decision, and cases where the parties are in the process of complying and did not appeal. All of those decisions are now void, but whether the aggrieved parties petition the board or the courts of appeals to review their cases as a result of the ruling may depend on the facts of those cases.

Supreme Court Allows Search of Employee's City-Owned Pager
In its first ruling on the privacy of workplace texting, the Supreme Court said that a city audit of an employee's messages on a city-owned pager was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. The unanimous ruling sidestepped whether a police sergeant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages, some of which turned out to be private and sexually explicit. The Supreme Court found that the city's search - aimed at determining whether city employees in general needed a higher number of minutes on their pagers - was reasonable under any view of the Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable searches. Even though the case involved a public workplace where the Fourth Amendment would be in full force, employment lawyers said the ruling underscores the need for policies on privacy in private work settings as well.

Black Firefighters Settle Lawsuit Against Philadelphia
A group of African American firefighters and the NAACP have settled their federal lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia over allegations of racist Internet postings made by white firefighters while on duty. A judge dismissed claims against the city at the request of Club Valiants, the organization of black firefighters that has battled the fire department on issues of race and discrimination for 40 years. Last year, Club Valiants and the Philadelphia NAACP sued the city and Local 22 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, alleging that city computers were used to post "racially harassing and discriminatory materials and comments" on the union's own Web site and another site used mostly by police officers, creating a hostile work environment. As part of the settlement, the city has agreed to pay $15,000 in legal fees and "provide additional diversity training" with input from the Valiants and the NAACP. The city will also "re-post" the city's policy against using city computers for "discriminatory purposes."

BP Apologizes and Guarantees $20 Billion for Gulf
President Barack Obama has wrested a $20 billion compensation guarantee and an apology to the nation from British oil giant BP, announcing the company would set up a major claims fund for shrimpers, restaurateurs and others whose lives and livelihoods are being wrecked by the oil flooding into the Gulf of Mexico. Creation of the fund - to be run by an administrator with a proven track record - is the first big success Obama has been able to give to Gulf residents and the nation in the eight weeks since the explosion. Huge as the $20 billion seems, Obama and BP said it was by no means a cap. The deal also adhered to what Obama has said was his non-negotiable demand: that the fund and the claims process by administered independently from BP.

Spill Takes Toll On Gulf Workers' Psyches
Beyond the environmental and economic damage, the toll of the mammoth spill in the Gulf of Mexico is being measured in hopelessness, anxiety, stress, anger, depression and even suicidal thoughts among those most affected, social workers say. Mindful of the surge in psychological ailments after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in 2005, community groups are trying to tend to the collective psyche of fishermen even as they address more immediate needs like financial aid. While state officials have emphasized the resiliency of Gulf Coast residents, experts say the region should brace for long-term psychological strain. Researchers who studied the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill said coastal residents of Alaska saw a higher incidence of suicide, divorce, domestic violence and substance abuse. To this day, many are still dealing with the effects of the environmental damage, economic losses and lawsuits.

VA Faces Flood of New Claims and Charges of Hostile Work Environment
The Veterans Affairs Department faces a wave of more than a million new disability claims this year, a workload compounded by delays in developing automated systems to process them, department officials and representatives of the veterans services organizations told lawmakers recently. In addition, employees at the Veterans Benefits Administration have difficulty managing paper claims in a work environment described as "hostile" and that has "deteriorated significantly" since the newest VA secretary took over in 2009. The number of claims the department received increased from 578,773 in 2000 to 1.014 million in 2009, a 75 percent increase. The Veterans Benefits Administration got even more bad news when a rating veterans service representative said the agency should improve its relations between labor and management if it wants to better process the flood of claims. She claims the VBA targeted union representatives, sometimes at the expense of veterans. For example, a union official was prevented from working overtime to process claims because solely because she was a union member. She alleged that the VA "maintains discriminatory, counterproductive telework policies across all of its regional offices."

Court Wrestles with Home Depot Sex Harassment Suit
The full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrestled with how claims that a Home Depot human resources manager made sexual advances toward two employees fit with the court's earlier decision that favored plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases. The arguments concerned two former store managers who say they were fired because they complained about the actions of the human resources manager. Among the claims made by the plaintiffs, they say the manager asked in telephone calls whether they wore "boxers or briefs or nothing," whether they shaved their bodies, and whether they colored their hair, remarking on what color their hair must be "down there, too." A federal judge in Alabama granted Home Depot's summary judgment request as to the plaintiffs' claims of sexual harassment, retaliation for complaining about harassment and state law torts of assault and battery, outrage and invasion of privacy. Three-judge panels of the 11th Circuit have twice looked at the case, each time reviving the retaliation claims but affirmed the dismissal of the sexual harassment claims. However, it appears some judges on the panel weren't satisfied with the court's dismissal of the sexual harassment claims. In a decision that surprised the plaintiffs, the court said it would have the whole court rehear the case.

Unions Advocate Better Workplace Safety Laws
Earlier this year, three workers were cleaning hydrocarbons out of a compressor in an Exxon oil refinery in Louisiana when a fireball erupted - but when an inspector from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration arrived to check the machine, he was told the information was proprietary and sent away. The problems with national health and safety laws is that they don't have any teeth. The maximum OHSA fine for a single safety violation that results in death is $7,000. The maximum criminal penalty - which can be enforced only in the case of a willful violation of safety laws that results in death - is six months in prison. In response, the United Steelworkers and United Mine Workers held an emergency meeting to address pervasive occurrences of injury and death that have been highlighted by the recent explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners and the explosion of the Deep Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico that killed 11 workers.

Scranton Police Sued Against by Another Female Officer
Another Scranton policewoman has filed a federal lawsuit against the department and city, claiming she was the victim of age and sex discrimination. The officer claims her supervisors "undertook a deliberate course of discriminatory conduct due to her age and gender" beginning in 2007. The suit claims she was mocked because of her age, and cites as one example a "sarcastic rant" by a supervisory who referred to her as "granny." She claims she received a five-day suspension in 2007 "without warning or notice and based on allegations dating back as far as 2003." The local Fraternal of Police filed a grievance, and the department was ordered to pay her lost wages after it was found that "there was no just cause for the discipline." Last year, two other female officers filed a federal civil rights suit against the city and department after the chief allegedly called them "overtime whores."

Federal Judge Approves 'Very Good' Renegotiated 9/11 Settlement
A judge has given his stamp of approval to a renegotiated settlement of suits filed by 10,000 plaintiffs who suffered respiratory and other illnesses in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Almost three months after sending the lawyers back to the bargaining table because he said that their original $657 million pact paid too little to injured rescue and cleanup workers, he pronounced his enthusiastic support for the new settlement. The new $712.5 million settlement is likely to increase by as much as $125 million the payout to those injured by the toxic dust. The deal was achieved by compromise on three sides. New York City waived certain workers' compensation liens, adding up to about $25 million; plaintiffs attorneys agreed to cap their fees, sending an additional $50 million to their clients; and a decision by the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Co. came up with at least another $50 million.

Houston Jury Awards $82 Million in 2007 Gas Blast Death
Lawyers say a Texas jury has awarded $82.5 million in damages to the family of a man who died in a 2007 explosion at a natural gas processing plant. The company, which constructed, engineered and installed the natural gas processing plant, was found grossly negligent in the death of a 27-year-old employee. Attorneys for the employee's family argued that the furnace exploded at the plant due to a lack of safety devices. The jury found the company 90 percent responsible, while the plaintiff's employer was cited for 10 percent responsibility. 

Suit Revived Against Law Firm Over Partner's Alleged Rape of Receptionist
A Louisiana appeals court has revived a civil suit brought by a receptionist against the law firm where she used to work and where she alleged that she was raped by a partner. The receptionist seeks to hold the firm liable for the assault, to which the alleged perpetrator pleaded guilty to lesser charges. A trial judge granted summary judgment to the defendants in 2009, but the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that the plaintiff could sue for negligence because she had been a client of the firm as well as an employee. The court cited testimony from former employees that the firm's office atmosphere was anything but conventional. Managers and employees occasionally drank at work during business owners, partners made sexually provocative comments and overtures to employees and one partner had a sauna in his office and would routinely walk back and forth in just a towel. The receptionist claims she had been drinking at work when she fell asleep on a couch. When she awoke, she found the partner raping her. He claimed that although they kissed, he refused her further advances. When the firm argued that the incident had nothing to do with the practice of law, which barred the claim under Louisiana's workers' compensation law, she amended her petition to note that she was also a client of the firm, which was advising her pro bono on child custody issues.

Resort Workers Allege Age Discrimination
Two former ski resort workers have filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the resort, alleging they were dismissed because of shortcomings attributable to age. The lawsuit recites a litany of their ailments, including carpal tunnel, back injuries, knee replacements and smoking. Both women, who worked as ski trip coordinators, are over 50 years of age. One of the women "was obese with two knee replacements and who knows what was coming next, and none of them participated in sports activities, especially skiing." The women said management made clear they weren't the type to attract young customers through direct statements. The two claim the resort took away ski shows from them, hiring young ski coordinators to be trained and game them the shows to do. The women initially took their case to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which did not find that any laws were violated.

U.S. Chemical Safety Board to Probe 'Root Causes' of BP Oil Rig Blast
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board has agreed to investigate the "root causes" of the blast on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. This is the third BP incident the board has investigated since 2005. The request came in a letter from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is probing the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The explosion killed 11 workers and continues to spill oil into the Gulf at an unprecedented rate. The board has been asked to find answers to five questions, which include whether cost-cutting and budgetary concerns played a role in BP's decisions about well design and testing. In a 2005 probe of a BP refinery explosion that killed 15, the board found that cost-cutting, a lax safety culture and production pressures from BP executives were key factors. 

Arbitrator Can Fashion Discipline in Labor Dispute, New Jersey Court Rules
A word of warning to drafters of arbitration clauses in employment contracts: If the agreement doesn't define "just cause" for discipline, the arbitrator will fill in the meaning, and the parties are stuck with it. That's the gist of a ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which reinstated an arbitrator's finding that suspension, not termination, was suitable punishment for a high school custodian's misbehavior. Faced with ambiguous language in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator did not exceed his authority by finding "progressive/corrective discipline to be an integral part of the just cause concept."

Prison to Buy Insurance to Cover Job Injuries in Work-Release Cases
Butler County Prison is changing its policy about work release prisoners following a recent injury to one of those prisoners. The country has entered into an agreement to purchase an insurance policy that will cover any work release prisoner who is injured on the job. The agreement is a direct result of a dispute between the county and the city over a $1,300 bill for a foot injury. A prison who was approved for work release was assigned to the city's public works department and hurt hit foot when a manhole cover fell on it. The county wanted the city to pay for the $1,300 medical bill, but the city solicitor said it wasn't the city's responsibility. The county's work release program is for prisoners who are allowed by the court either to go to their day-jobs then report to the prison at night or for those who do not have a job but who are approved for work release that involves community service to municipalities. The new policy will have the county prison pay the annual $800 premium from the prison commissary fund, which accrues money from prisoners buying personal items from the commissary. The monthly premium of $5.83 per participant would be paid by the inmate who wants to participate in the work release program.

Ex-Police Chief Files Federal Suit
A dismissed Pennsylvania police chief is seeking $500,000 in damages from his former employer for "embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish." His lawsuit challenges the borough's justification for firing him earlier this year and alleges the mayor and council violated his right of "due process" under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The civil complaint also accuses borough officials of being the source of unproved allegations about evidence allegedly disposed of by the police department under his supervision and claims the ex-chief was given no reason for his firing and no chance to defend himself. The complaint further alleges he should have been allowed to go back into the collective bargaining unit and remain on the police force with the rank of lieutenant. In addition to the emotional aspects of his firing, his complaint cites loss of income and damage to his reputation, which is alleged to be so great as to make him "unemployable as a police chief." The borough, the ex-chief and two other police officers are listed as defendants in another federal lawsuit by owners of a borough tavern alleging the establishment was unfairly targeted by police.

Senate Committee Wrestles with Oil Spill Liability Issues
A private consultant for energy companies told Congress that any effort to rewrite oil spill liability laws retroactively would likely face a legal challenge based on breach-of-contract claims. If successful, those breach-of-contract claims could cost the federal government billions of dollars in payments to the oil and gas industry. The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering legislation to lift limits on damage awards. The drilling leases purchased by oil and gas companies are contracts with the federal government, and that the contracts were signed with certain expectations about liability. There is ample precedent for companies to sue when the federal government changes the terms of those leases.

New Threat to Oil Spill Workers? Deadly Snakes
Thousands of spill workers flocking to Louisiana to help clean up the soiled coastline might have more to contend with than just oil slicks and tarballs, health officials say. There are also snakes. Water moccasins, copperheads, coral snakes and at least three kinds of rattlesnakes could pose threats to the unwary out-of-towners now stomping through the swamps, marshes and other coastal areas of Louisiana. So far, no oil workers have been bitten, but the worst is feared in a state that sees 225 snakebites even in a normal year. Overall, between 5,000 and 8,000 people are bitten by snakes nationally and about a dozen die from their injuries. The last few weeks have seen officials working to ensure that Louisiana hospitals have an ample supply of anti-venom in case the need arises. About 70 percent of Louisiana hospitals have enough antidote to treat one serious bite, or about 12 vials. That doesn't count injuries from the rare but dangerous coral snake, which requires a cure that is in short supply ever since Wyeth Pharmaceuticals decided to pull the plug on the low-profit product.

Criminal Probe of Oil Spill Could Hang Up Civil Suits
The U.S. Justice Department's decision to open a criminal investigation into the Gulf Coast oil spill is threatening to complicate scores of lawsuits brought by people seeking compensation for the disaster. At issue are questions that often come up in so-called "parallel proceedings" - in which multiple government agencies are investigating the same event for possible wrongdoing. Different divisions of the Justice and Interior Departments are looking into the oil spill, searching for civil and criminal liability. And in this situation, the existence of the private lawsuits adds another layer of difficulty. Fore the companies responsible for the spill, there is now less incentive to cooperate in the civil suits, for fear that any statements could later be used against them in a criminal case. For the plaintiffs, the criminal inquiry is more of a mixed bag. They fear less cooperation from defendants, but they also held out hope for access to additional evidence if prosecutors make new information public in court. A guilty plea from a criminal defendant could bolster their cases, but an acquittal could hurt. 

Customs Agent's Widow to Appeal Ruling Involving Courthouse Shooter
A lawyer for the widow of the off-duty federal customs agent murdered by an inmate following his 2005 escape from a courthouse will appeal a Georgia Court of Appeals ruling tossing out civil suits against a half-dozen current and former sheriff's deputies. The deputies were on duty at the courthouse the day the inmate broke free and killed a judge, court reporter and deputy sergeant while on trial for rape. He killed the customs agent hours later and miles away. While the deputies' "alleged malfeasance might have been the cause in fact of some injuries" following the escape, the custom agent's murder six miles away and several hours later was not a foreseeable consequence of the deputies' actions, said the court.

Much Ado About Muffins
A three-judge panel will soon consider whether the manufacturer of Thomas' English muffins was entitled to an injunction that barred one of its top-level executives from taking a new job with a competitor. The fast-tracked appeal will review a ruling from earlier this year in which a judge enjoined the executive from working for Hostess. The judge found that his extensive knowledge of Thomas' trade secrets - including manufacturing secrets used to make the famous "nooks and crannies" - made it substantially likely, if not inevitable, that he would disclose the company's secrets to Hostess. The judge also found that the evidence showed he continued to work for Thomas for several months after accepting the new job and attended high-level strategy meetings, and that he had copied sensitive computer files just before his departure.

Easton Asks for Rehearing of Costly Ruling
Lawyers for the City of Easton have asked a federal appeals court to reconsider its decision to stick the city with its $5 million settlement over the accidental death of a police officer. In asking for the whole 3rd Circuit Court to hear the case, city lawyers wrote in their petition that the dispute has a "potential impact on millions of dollars in public funds," not only in Easton but in cities with similar insurance across Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Last year, Easton officials agreed to the $5 million settlement to end a civil rights and wrongful death lawsuit over the officer's accidental shooting by a fellow officer inside police headquarters in 2005. But the city's insurer had said for years it wasn't obligated to cover the case's costs. A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit agreed.

Former Branch Manager Sues First National Bank
A former branch bank manager is suing First National Bank, saying her dismissal was due to gender bias, not to a short register or any fault of her own. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $75,000. In 2008, the branch came up $2,000 short in the daily accounting, and she notified the security department in line with the bank's guidelines. She says the security department told her that no violations were found and no written warning could be given to her. But, according to her suit, her supervisor told her the investigation was being reopened. She complains that her treatment was more severe than male branch managers had received. In 2009, a bank customer supposedly made a lewd comment to a bank teller at the branch, and she claims the teller never reported the sexual harassment to her. She was subsequently "wrongfully terminated based upon the pretext of her inability to properly control her branch and handle the alleged 'sexual harassment' of a teller by a customer."

At Congressional Hearing, BP Official Resists Defining 'Legitimate' Claims
A top BP executive declined to be specific when pressed at a congressional hearing to say what kind of claims the company will pay from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the liability questions surrounding the Gulf of Mexico spill, including the response of the companies involved and the damage limits written into federal law. BP's vice president for resources said BP would pay all legitimate claims, repeating a company refrain that has drawn skepticism from lawmakers and from plaintiffs' advocates, who have brought scores of class actions and other lawsuits against BP and other companies.

'Pants Judge' Loses Wrongful Termination Appeal
A former administrative law judge, who was made famous when he filed a multimillion-dollar suit against a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants, was denied reappointment to his post in 2007. He promptly sued, making a host of claims. When his wrongful termination suit was dismissed by the federal district court in Washington, he turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a three-judge panel has upheld the dismissal of his suit. At issue in the suit was his contention that he was denied reappointment because of complaints about the peer review system in place at the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. He had complained that his independence as a judge was "chilled and frustrated" by a secret peer review system. The panel found that his testimony was not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, pointing to a ruling last year in which the court said that a public employee speaks without First Amendment protection when he reports conduct that interferes with his job responsibilities, which they found he had done.

Former Google Executive's Age Bias Claims May Get Day in Court
Even though he was hired for an executive position at age 52, the plaintiff in an age discrimination case against Google contends he was booted 20 months later because management felt he was no longer a "cultural fit" for a company dominated by younger employees. If questions posed by California Supreme Court justices during arguments are any indication, the plaintiff - who claims fellow workers and managers said he was obsolete, an old fuddy-duddy and lacked new ideas - might get his day in court after all. But that would depend on whether the high court decides the insults allegedly hurled his way showed bias by managers toward older workers or were merely "stray remarks" by fellow employees with no obvious discriminatory intent.

California High Court Tips Hand On Suits Over Gratuities
Although seeming to agree that gratuities are the "sole property" of tip-earning employees, five states Supreme Court justices didn't appear ready to give those workers a private right to sue their bosses in court. A class of casino card dealers claim that a 37-year-old amendment to state Labor Code 351 not only gave employees the sole right to their tips, but provided an unwritten, albeit implied, private right of action to keep employers from taking or redistributing them. The class action was filed in 2002 by a card dealer who objected to a rule at the Hawaiian Gardens Casino that required him to pool 15 to 20 percent of his daily tips with chip runners, floormen, porters and other employees.

Courts Split On Staying Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuits
Two federal courts came down on opposite sides of the "to stay or not to stay" question in cases over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. A federal judge in Alabama denied a request by BP, one of the defendants, to stay a lawsuit brought by a seafood processor, holding that a stay would be premature and that BP should answer the complaint now because it will have to at some point. BP is seeking to have federal lawsuits stayed in five of the Gulf states until a judicial panel decides whether to combine the more than 130 federal cases into a multidistrict proceeding. The same day, a federal judge in New Orleans granted BP's motion to stay a lawsuit filed by a fishing charter company, concluding that BP and the other defendants could face undue hardships if the scores of lawsuits filed so far are allowed to proceed prior to a decision from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Safety Rules Can't Keep Up with Biotech Industry
They are the highly trained, generally well-paid employees in the vanguard of American innovation: people who work in biotechnology labs. But the cutting edge can be a risky place to work. The casualties include an Agriculture Department scientist who spent a month in a coma after being infected by the E. coli bacteria her colleagues were experimenting with. Another scientist, working in a New Zealand lab while on leave from an American biotechnology company, lost both legs and an arm after being infected by meningococcal bacteria, the subject of her vaccine research. Most recently, a University of Chicago scientist died after apparently being inflicted by the focus of his research: the bacterium that causes plague. Whether handling deadly pathogens for biowarfare research, harnessing viruses to do humankind's bidding or genetically transforming cells to give them powers not found in nature, the estimated 232,000 employees in the nation's most sophisticated biotechnology labs work amid imponderable hazards. And some critics say the modern biolab often has fewer federal safety regulations than a typical blue-collar factory. Even the head of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration acknowledges that his agency's 20th-centry rules have not yet caught up with the 21st-century biotech industry.

Transocean Seeks Delay of Depositions in Oil Spill Litigation
The company that owns the sunken Deepwater Horizon rig has argued in federal court that plaintiffs should not begin collecting evidence and testimony on the Gulf oil spill until the November deadline for claimants to file suit. Transocean made its arguments after the federal court there accepted the company's petition to limit its liability in the oil spill to less than $27 million, the amount the company says the sunken rig is worth. Transocean owned the rig that blew up, killing 11 workers and causing one of the worst U.S. oil spills in decades. The liability set by the court is based on a 19th century federal maritime law. Lawsuits have been filed in numerous states, and Transocean has said it filed its petition under the 1851 Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act to get all the lawsuits aggregated in once court. Attorneys representing workers' widows and workers injured in the initial explosion said the limitation can be broken if they can prove Transocean was negligent. They also argued it was unfair to make families who have suffered wait even longer.

Asbestos Contamination Still Taking Toll On Town
The town of Libby, Montana, with a population of 3,000, has emerged as the deadliest Superfund site in the nation's history. Health workers tracking Libby's plight estimate at least 400 people have died of asbestos-related illnesses - from mine workers and family members who breathed in the dust they brought home in their clothes, to those who played as kids in waste piles dumped by the company behind the community baseball field. Some 1,500 locals and others who were exposed have chest X-rays revealing the faint, cloudy shadows of asbestos scarring on their lungs. Even though research long showed cause for concern - up to 70 percent of miners in a 1980s study had fibers in their lungs - it took news reports about the deaths to drive officials into action, beginning a decade ago. After the cleanup began, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency confidently predicted it would be done in two years at a cost of $5.8 million. Ten years on, the price tag has exceeded $333 million, the deaths continue and more asbestos keeps showing up - in schools, in businesses and in hundreds of houses.

California Supreme Court Clarifies Who Can't Be Sued by Stiffed Workers
For 97 years, neither California legislators nor the courts even clarified who qualified as an employer under the state Welfare Commission's wage orders. That changed when the California Supreme Court denied, in part, who doesn't qualify - at least in business relationships where employees work for independent contractors. Specifically, the court held unanimously that farmworkers couldn't seek unpaid wages from the two companies that marketed strawberries they picked for their boss, an independent contractor who went broke while they worked for him. The ruling shot down the hopes of not only thousands of farmworkers, but janitors, food service workers and others dependent on jobs in which employers contract with third parties for services.

Novartis Hit with $250 Million in Punitives in Gender Bias Case
Novartis Pharmaceuticals has been slammed with $250 million in punitive damages in the largest-ever award in a gender bias case. A jury took slightly more than one day to deliver the blow after it found Novartis liable for discrimination against women employees in pay, promotion and pregnancy policies. The jury had awarded compensatory damages totaling nearly $3.4 million to 12 plaintiffs, all current or former sales representatives who claimed discrimination between 2002 and 2007. The punitive damages will apply to those plaintiffs as well as members of a class as large as 5,600 women.

Law Firm to Former Partner Suing Over Severance: Wait Your Turn
The defunct Wolf Block law firm and its former chairman said in court filings that a former partner suing over not receiving his severance payments is considered a retired partner and has to wait in line behind third party creditors for any payouts. The firm also said the partnership agreement requires the dispute to be heard in confidential arbitration and that the former partner's claims for breach of contract and violations of the state Wage Payment and Collection Law aren't legally sufficient to withstand preliminary objections. The former partner's complaint described an exchange between himself and an attorney for Wolf Block's wind-down committee over whether his severance could be considered a pension, and therefore not payable until obligations to third-party creditors are satisfied, or if he himself is a third-party creditor falling outside the scope of the partnership agreement's section on pensions. According to the former partner, he wasn't retiring but was asked to leave the firm and agreed. Documents signed when he left refer to the payments as both severance and retirement payments.

World Wrestling Entertainment Denies Firing General Counsel for Sexual Harassment
World Wrestling Entertainment has denied a report from an author that it fired its general counsel over a sexual harassment claim. In an email, the WWE said its general counsel "was not terminated by WWE. We have parted ways amicably." According to the author, a female co-worker from the company's sales department accused WWE's executive vice president and general counsel overseeing legal and business affairs of making unwanted advances on her at a Wrestle Mania after-party earlier this year. He had reportedly been drinking at the time of the incident. He was originally reported to have been suspended, but the suspension was almost instantly changed to a dismissal after the news became more public. In a bizarre twist, the author also reported that the female co-worker was fired from WWE a month later. She was reportedly caught in a sex act with a subordinate male employee during work hours.

City Stuck with $5 Million Settlement
The city of Easton, not its insurance company, is on the hook for the city's $5 million settlement with the widow of an officer shot inside police headquarters, a federal appeals court has ruled. The three-judge panel sided with the insurance company, agreeing that the lawsuit over the officer's accidental shooting in 2005 falls under an "employee injury exclusion" in the city's insurance policy. The mayor said city officials haven't ruled out appealing the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last year, city officials agreed to the $5 million settlement - the largest in Easton's history - to end the wrongful death and civil rights suit brought by the officer's widow. Easton has already paid her $3.1 million to his widow, and the rest is due by the end of the year. However, the city's budget includes no funds for paying the settlement. Officials had counted on a win in the insurance case to let them quickly pay back the $3 million loan they took out earlier this year to pay the settlement's latest installment.

Judge to Determine if Obesity Constitutes a Disability in Karate Teacher's Suit Over Firing
The open question of whether obesity alone can be counted as a disability under the "uniquely broad and remedial" statutory scheme of the New York City Human Rights Law has been remanded to a district judge. The plaintiff in the case claims he was fired from his job as a karate instructor because he is obese. When he was fired in 2002, he informed the owner that he planned to file a discrimination charge with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, and his roommate was fired shortly after because of his connection to the plaintiff. The pair filed the suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the state and city human rights laws.

Hearing Centers On Gas Meter from Explosion Site
Law enforcement, federal safety experts, company lawyers and civil attorneys weighed in on what to do with a battered gas-detection meter that could shed light on the cause of a fatal power plant explosion. The attorneys addressed a judge about their wish to examine the heavily damaged meter, which survived the explosion. The meter is the equivalent of a crashed airline's "black box," the attorneys said, and could help explain the explosion that killed six workers and injured more than 20 others. The meter's data chip may contain gas-level readings taken before and during the blast, information about whether warning alarms went off and other critical details. Or, if it's too badly damaged, the meter could be useless. Some workers have said they noticed an unusually strong gas smell just before the blast, which ripped apart the nearly completed power plant. It occurred as employees cleaned pipes by blowing large amounts of natural gas through them.

Groups Lining Up to Stop Employment Practices They Say are Abusive to Workers
They are janitors, laborers, delivery drivers, writers, computer programmers. All are employed by companies - many wearing company uniforms, working on company computers in company offices performing the work that the company sells - but technically they are working for themselves as independent contractors, freelancers, consultants and contract workers. State and federal governments, unions and even employers who do not classify their workers as independent contractors are trying to stop this practice. To a worker in need of a job when there are few jobs to be found, the way in which they are classified may not seem to be a big deal. If a worker doesn't get laid off, doesn't get hurt and gets paid minimum wage, from the worker's perspective, it could be 'no harm, no foul.' However, Pennsylvania's Unemployment Compensation fund is currently underfunded because 580,000 workers or approximately 9 percent of the state's workforce are misclassified as independent contractors, and companies that are classifying workers as employees are being hurt by those that aren't when it comes to bidding on jobs.

Democrats Take On Supreme Court Over Age Discrimination Law
Congressional Democrats are taking a whack at overriding another recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, looking this time at a 2009 ruling about age discrimination. The decision changed the standard of proof for workers who sue under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Under the Court's opinion, a worker must prove that the employer would not have taken a certain action, such as a demotion, "but for" the worker's age, even if there is evidence that age was a factor in the decision. Plaintiffs lawyers say the decision has made it more difficult to bring age discrimination claims, and Democrats are taking up their argument, just as they did after a 2007 decision about gender discrimination. The House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions heard from the plaintiff in the case that reached the Supreme Court, who was among a group of employees, almost all over 50 years old, who were demoted. Legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate that would override the Supreme Court's interpretation of the age discrimination law. Under the legislation, a plaintiff would have to show only that an "impermissible factor" such as age "was a motivating factor" in the employer's action.

Oil Spill Lawsuits Spreading Fast
A fisherman is the lead plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Florida federal court against oil giant BP and others associated with the disaster is asking for no less than $5 million in damages. Fishermen have been told by the oil industry that such an accident could never occur. However, the 200,000 gallons of oil spewing into gulf waters daily is threatening a good portion of the nation's seafood supply, with tourism interests expected to be next in line. Individual claims for business losses and health consequences are expected in some form, and lawsuits filed by federal and state governments could follow.

Third Wrongful Death Suit Filed Over Oil Right Explosion
A third wrongful death suit was filed over the Gulf of Mexico oil rig explosion, this one involving a crane operator from Mississippi who was on deck relieving another operator when the blast occurred. The suit was filed on behalf of the family of one of the 11 men still missing after the explosion. According to the complaint, witnesses saw the man try to escape down some stairs when the first explosion occurred. He is believed to have died in the second blast. Two other wrongful death suits were filed within days of the explosion. The most recent suit also includes claims on behalf of three Louisiana men who were seriously injured while working on the drilling rig. Among their claims is that, after escaping the rig, they had to wait for rescue alongside the blazing structure for over 10 hours knowing their friends were on it. The lawsuit alleges that the rig was unseaworthy, that it wasn't properly maintained and that those who oversaw its operations failed to meet federal safety standards.

EEOC Moves to Strike Portions of Firm's Defense in Age Discrimination Suit
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has moved to strike portions of the defense a firm has put forward in the agency's age discrimination suit. The motion comes in response to an answer the firm filed in the EEOC's action against the firm. The EEOC claims the firm practices discrimination in compensation against partners over 70 and that the firm retaliated against the de-equitized partner who complained by slashing his bonus. The firm argued that the partner and others like him are not covered by federal employee protections. The firm's answer said the EEOC's claims were barred by statute of limitations. The EEOC, in its motion, moved to strike that defense, saying no such statute of limitation exists. The EEOC likewise said any allegation that the partner had waived his right to sue the firm under a federal anti-discrimination statute does not stop the EEOC from bringing an action on his behalf.

Lawsuits Over Oil Rig Disaster Spill Into Court in Mississippi
More litigation is gushing out of the Gulf of Mexico spill. In Mississippi, two commercial shrimpers filed a $5 million class action in federal court, alleging the oil spill could destroy their livelihoods. In Louisiana, a proposed class action was filed in federal court on behalf of a fishing company claiming financial injuries from the spill. In the same court, two similar lawsuits were filed on behalf of two charter fishing companies alleging their business has come to a halt because of the spill. There is also the first oil spill lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana, where shrimpers, commercial fishermen and commercial boaters are suing over lost business.

Federal Court Rejects Secondhand Smoke Defense of TSA Employee
A federal judge has held that a baggage screener who tested positive for marijuana cannot avoid being fired on the grounds that his test results were allegedly the product of secondhand smoke. The plaintiff challenged his dismissal in a civil rights action filed last year. In his 22-page decision, the judge shot down each of the plaintiff's claims, including that the federal government violated his substantive and procedural rights. "Though plaintiff contends he was owed 'a hearing before an independent tribunal prior to his termination,' due process in this context only requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; plaintiff was offered both," the judge ruled. The plaintiff claimed his positive drug test was the result of secondhand smoke he had inhaled at a recent concert.

Partner's Discrimination Suit Against Firm Headed Back to Court
A Pittsburgh law firm is poised to square off in a federal appeals court against one of its own partners in a potentially groundbreaking sex discrimination suit that could open the door to women lawyers suing for equal pay after they've been named partners. The partner's suit already set a precedent when an appeals court held that she could not be forced to arbitrate her claims, rejecting the firm's argument that its bylaws mandate arbitration. When the case was remanded, it was assigned to a new judge, who granted summary judgment in favor of the firm on the grounds that the partner - as a shareholder and member of the firm's board of directors - cannot be considered an "employee" of the firm. Now, in its second appeal, the partner is asking the court to revive her case, arguing that despite her titles of shareholder and director, she should be treated as an employee because her work is "subject tot he control" of the firm's executive committee. She has accused the firm of paying female lawyers less than males and claims she has been told by a male partner that a woman with children should relinquish her partnership and work only part-time.

Jury Awards $200 Million in Punitive Damages in Asbestos Case
A Los Angeles jury awarded $200 million in punitive damages and $8.8 million in compensatory damages in an asbestos product liability case, but it looks likely to be reduced. After the jury handed down its verdict, the judge asked attorneys from both sides to write briefs on what an appropriate punitive damages award would be. Plaintiffs attorneys argued that their client's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos fibers she breathed while washing her husband's work clothes. Her husband worked for the city's water and power department for 24 years. At trial, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power only disputed its share of the liability, and the other defendant, which the jury hit with 70 percent of the liability, argued that there was "no constitutional or legal basis for such a grossly excessive award." 

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Gulf of Mexico Spill
The plaintiffs bar is beginning to circle the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and one of the first lawyers to court is also caught up in Toyota's unintended-acceleration litigation. He recently filed a class action over damages caused by the drilling right that exploded. The suit was filed on behalf of Louisiana shrimpers, fishermen and commercial boaters who claim the oil spill is hurting their livelihood. The class may grow, as commercial boaters and fishermen in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Texas say the oil has spread to their locations and is shutting their businesses.

Ex-Worker Says Her Firing was Based On Genetic Test
After finding she had a predisposition for breast cancer and watching her two sisters battle the disease, a Connecticut woman underwent a preventive double mastectomy. However, when she returned from surgery, her company started giving her fewer responsibilities, then demoted her and ultimately fired her. She recently filed one of the first complaints claiming illegal dismissal under a new federal law that prohibits employers from considering someone's genetic background in firing, hiring or promotions. Her complaint, filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, raises new questions about when and whether employers can fire or demote employees when they learn the employees' genetic information. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits companies and health insurers from requiring genetic testing, asking for genetic information or using it against employees.

Federal Judge Slashes Emotional Damages Award by Two-Thirds
Slashing a jury's emotional damages award by two-thirds, a federal judge has ruled that a plaintiff who has no evidence of "long-lasting effects" from a bad period of emotional trauma is not entitled to any more than $50,000. The ruling reduces a jury's verdict from $150,000 to $50,000 and completely overturns the jury's award of $6,000 in punitive damages - $1,000 against each of the six individual defendants. In the suit, the plaintiff claims he was improperly suspended without any hearing from his post as assistant fire chief when officials concluded he lacked essential qualifications. The judge had previously tossed out the entire case on summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff's due process claim was fatally flawed because he was suspended with pay and quickly reinstated to his post when officials held a hearing a short time later. A judge found that this rights had been denied, and the case went to a jury trial that found his rights were violated. Though his suspension should have been confidential, it was leaked to the press, which the plaintiff claimed caused him anxiety and humiliation. The judge found that courts have been willing to throw out entire awards when the plaintiff has "little or no evidence" of emotional distress and that the jury's award was "shocking to the judicial conscience."

9th Circuit OKs Huge Wal-Mart Class
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has voted to certify a gender discrimination claim against retail behemoth Wal-Mart, which plaintiffs attorneys say is the largest employment discrimination class action ever. The case involves more than a million potential plaintiffs and is widely expected to draw U.S. Supreme Court review. Not only was the 9th Circuit split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court has shown a drive to tackle threshold questions of civil procedure that determine whether a case goes forward. A judge previously certified the sprawling Wal-Mart class in 2004, finding the female plaintiffs made a sufficiently common allegation of pay discrimination. The case been widely watched by the business community and several sections of the bar. A split 9th Circuit panel upheld the judge's ruling, and just before oral arguments, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission jumped into the case on the plaintiffs' side, reversing an earlier decision to sit it out.

Magistrate Dismisses Assault Charges Against Corrections Officers
A judge has dismissed most of the charges filed against two Wayne County correctional officers accused of repeatedly assaulting a prison inmate while on duty at the facility. State police had charged both guards with simple assault, engaging in official oppression and harassment of a 21-year-old male inmate. During the course of the investigation, two other correctional officers told state police that they witnessed abuse on the part of both men that included striking the inmate with a closed fist, slapping him several times in the face and ridiculing him. After hearing three hours of testimony at a preliminary hearing, the judge dismissed all charged except the harassment charge. He claimed the criminal investigation did not prove the officers recklessly caused bodily injury to the inmate or engaged in illegal mistreatment. The defense argued that the inmate was troublesome and spent most of his time in a restricted prison cell because he was defiant toward several correctional officers, threatening to kill one, flailing his arms and physically resisting to cooperate after being extracted from his cell.

Firing Over Creationism E-Mail Leads to Appeal
The former director of the science program for Texas' public schools has asked a federal appeals court to revive a lawsuit over her firing for forwarding an e-mail about a forum opposed to teaching creationism. The agency that runs Texas' public schools argued that her e-mail forwarding broke its policy of neutrality toward any potentially controversial issue, including creationism. Her lawyer argues that the policy was unwritten and unconstitutional. A panel heard arguments in her lawsuit against the commissioner of the Texas Education Agency after a judge dismissed her claims in 2009. She claims she was told to quit or be fired in 2007 after forwarding an e-mail about a presentation by a philosophy professor viewed as opposing creationism in schools. Her only comment on the forwarded e-mail was "FYI." The agency alleges she violated her employer's neutrality policy by airing her personal opposition to creationism.

Gaming Board Employee Accused of Staging Workplace Accident
A Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board employee has been accused of fraudulently collecting more than $4,700 in workers' compensation benefits after conspiring with two accomplices to stage a workplace accident at a casino last year. He has since been suspended without pay from his job as a casino compliance representative and arrested for insurance fraud. His allege accomplices also face fraud-related charges. He filed an injury claim with the Gaming Control Board and was accepted for workers' compensation after he fell while on duty at a casino. The fall happened when he was bumped from behind by one of the accomplices as all three descended a staircase. He remained on the floor after the fall, complaining of numbness in his legs. Suspicious gaming board officials referred the incident to the state police for investigation, and a review of surveillance recordings found several indicators suggesting the fall was staged along with cell phone records showing the man and one of the accomplices were in contact before the incident.

Officer Might Face Discipline for Work with Roethlisberger
Officials are awaiting case files from Georgia to determine whether a longtime police officer should face any discipline in connection with his role as a helper to Ben Roethlisberger, especially on the night the Steelers quarterback was accused of rape at a nightclub. The patrolman remains a full-time officer, and since 2008, he has also been on loan to a federal Drug Enforcement Agency task force at Pittsburgh International Airport, sometimes working as an undercover agent for drug buys. After learning of his potential involvement in Georgia earlier this year when a 20-year-old college student accused Roethlisberger of sexual assault and other witnesses alleged some of the quarterbacks entourage interfered with efforts to help the woman, local officials are further investigating the officer's conduct that night. Some witnesses claim they saw the officer with the alleged victim outside the restroom where she claimed to have been assaulted.

Judge Orders Wayne Prison Sexual Harassment Suit to Settle
A federal lawsuit claiming a female correctional officer was sexually harassed by her male co-workers while on duty at the Wayne County Correctional Facility will be resolved among those involved, a federal judge recently ruled. The suit, brought by a former county corrections officer in 2009, claims she was confronted with "sexually explicit gestures such as simulated copulation" at work. The judge ordered both parties to "negotiate and consummate a settlement" in a mediation conference. She is seeking lose pay and compensatory damages in excess of $75,000. In particular, the suit names her shift supervisor as perpetuating some of the acts, such as announcing on her first day of work over a speakerphone that she was a "hot female." Other defendants named in the suit are those in charge of prison oversight at the time of the allegations: county commissioners and a former prison warden. She also claims she was not granted an entitled promotion, and she was apparently removed from the work schedule a few days after airing her grievances about the promotion and the harassment meeting.

Female Philadelphia Officer Files Complaint Over Hair Color
For the second time in less than a year, a Philadelphia police officer's hair has become tangled in controversy. A female African American officer filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, saying her captain had ordered her to change her hair color, which he said was purple. When she refused, she twice was sent home, forcing her to miss her shift. She maintained the color was red. Her captain also ordered her hair color documented with photographs, and she twice was taken to Police Headquarters and "mug-shotted." She was accused of violating a directive which governs officers' hairstyles. It bans "unnatural colors" such as purple, blue and green. She said that red is not banned, and that she had worn the same style for seven years without complaint from any supervisor until then.

Cleared Ex-Aide Seeks $457,000
A former House Democratic staffer acquitted in the legislative bonus scandal is seeking $456,899 in back pay, benefits and interest from the state House. A jury acquitted the former director of information technology of 16 felonies after a seven-week trial. His lawyer said the House Democrats haven't provided a final answer but that an initial response from a caucus lawyer was not encouraging. He is asking for pay and benefits from the time the former House Democratic leader fired him in 2007 until when the jury acquitted him.

Federal Judge Certifies Class Action ERISA Suit Against Comcast
A federal judge has certified a class action ERISA suit against Comcast Corp. in which employees of the cable television giant claim they suffered losses in the company stock fund because it was heavily invested in Comcast stock during a period when its price was falsely inflated. At the heart of the suit are accusations that Comcast executives made overly optimistic predictions about the company's growth in early 2007, driving the price of the stock up, despite being aware of market forces that were sure to result in significantly lower growth. Many of Comcast's subscribers had joined under a promotional package known as the "Triple Play" - a bundle consisting of telephone, video and Internet services that was discounted to $99 per month for the first year - but the company was facing intense competition from AT&T and Verizon, where were offering similar discounts. As a result, the suit said, Comcast saw tens of thousands of subscribers defect to its competition in 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the truth was revealed in a series of disclosures over the course of 2007 that caused Comcast's stock price to plummet from a high of more than $28 to just over $18. Nearly identical accusations were also lodged in a securities fraud suit brought by outside investors. But Comcast dodged a bullet in 2008 when a federal judge tossed out the securities fraud suit after concluding that the investors had failed to back up their claims that Comcast executives were aware of the falsity of their bullish statements at the time they made them.

New York City and Contractors Appeal 9/11 Settlement Ruling
The city and contractors who handled the cleanup of the World Trade Center site after the September 11th attacks have notified a court that they are appealing a judge's decision to block a $575 million settlement of claims by thousands of workers who fell ill. Lawyers for the city and contractors filed papers to challenge several orders by a judge that had the effect of blocking implementation of the deal. The judge had demanded changes in the settlement, including adding millions of dollars more for the sick and reducing the cost of legal fees, citing a moral obligation to the 9/11 workers. An attorney for the city and the contractors it hired after the terrorist attacks said in a release that the judge's orders were "impeding the progress we have made and are destroying the ability to provide compensation now to deserving plaintiffs through a settlement process. We believe the judge does not have the legal authority to order the terms of a settlement for these parties." The judge acknowledged that he was breaking with legal tradition because judges usually do not interfere with private settlements, but "this is different. This is 9/11."

Law Firm and Former Associate Reach Settlement Over Pay Holdback Program
The battle between a firm and a former associate over $2,000 in back pay appears to be over. Both sides agreed to settled their small claims court dispute, but neither side would reveal the settlement terms. The case ended after months of depositions and an estimated $100,000-plus in legal fees. The plaintiff, a former associated with the firm, alleged his employers committed breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation by refusing to repay him the 12 percent deducted from his paycheck for several months in an associate pay holdback program. he also claims the involuntary pay deferral program violated his employment contract and the firm's policy manual. The firm announced the deferrals in a podcast in 2008, saying they affected all lawyers - however, partners' salary deferrals were only 4 percent, with partners missing one or more paychecks. During the litigation, the former associate lambasted his firm for allegedly refusing to tap into the firm's line of credit and instead "taking an interest free loan off the backs of its associates." The firm claimed it was not obligated to repay associates who were "disloyal" and left the firm.

Federal Civil Rights Suit Against Hospital Settled
A federal civil rights lawsuit alleging a Fayette County hospital fired a policeman because he is black has been resolved. In the lawsuit, the former policeman alleged he was let go after nearly 11 years of service when his supervisory questioned him in 2009 regarding a 10-year-old criminal charge for a bad check. The summary offense dated to 1998 and was for a bad check he had written for $60. He indicated that after he was questioned about the offense, he was fired because his boss thought he didn't answer his questions truthfully and that the bad-check charge did not reflect positively upon the image of the police department. According to the lawsuit, other hospital police officers who are white and have summary offenses, misdemeanor offenses and domestic-abuse incidents on their records have not been disciplined. As the only black officer on the force at that time, he contended he was targeted for dismissal because of his race.

Fundraising Firm Fires 18 with Criminal Records
A Pittsburgh company has completed background checks on its employees who solicit donations on behalf of charities and fired 18 with criminal records because their employment violates state law. The company vetted its 150-member staff - more than 135 of whom work as fundraisers - after a local newspaper found that more than two dozen who had been employed there since 2006 had either felony records or convictions for misdemeanors involving crimes of dishonesty. Pennsylvania law prohibits anyone with such a criminal background from working as a professional solicitor. Fundraisers at the company have access to people's home addresses and donation information - as well as their credit card numbers if donors charge contributions. Several charitable organizations have stopped using the company following the revelations about its employment of felons.

9/11 Cleanup Contractors Urge Approval of Deal Rejected by Judge
Lawyers for New York City, its contractors and plaintiffs huddled with special masters in an attempt to reframe a settlement that will satisfy the judge in the litigation involving respiratory illnesses allegedly caused by toxic dust at the World Trade Center site. The meeting among the lawyers and special masters came before what had been scheduled to be a full fairness hearing on a proposed $657 million settlement that could cover up to and beyond 10,000 plaintiffs. The need for the recent hearing was called into question when the judge, to the consternation of attorneys for all sides, said the settlement amount was not large enough. Earlier, the special masters received a special plea from lawyers for the main contractors who responded to the site on and after the terror attacks and handled the removal of debris. The contractors' attorneys wrote the special masters that the settlement strikes the appropriate balance between paying current claims and saving funds for future liabilities. The monies would come from the $1.1 billion World Trade Center Captive Insurance Co., established by a grant from FEMA in 2004 to help the city and contractors with insurance costs associated with the aftermath of the terror attacks.

Facing EEOC Suit, Law Firm Drops Retirement Policy
Bowing to pressure from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a law firm has dropped its mandatory retirement policy. The firm's chairman said the firm amended its partnership agreement to allow equity partners to continue on past age 70. Senior partners will now be judged solely on performance, like other partners. News of the decision, which had not been disclosed in the litigation, came just days after the firm responded to an age discrimination suit filed by the EEOC. The suit was prompted by a complaint from a 79-year-old lawyer who had been an equity partner with the firm. Under its previous system, the firm required partners to give up their equity interest at 70. They would then become "life partners," receiving annual payments, and those who continued to practice, like the plaintiff, could also receive a bonus. But the EEOC contended that the firm's system discriminated against partners 70 and older who kept working by paying them less. Partners may still retire and receive the life-partner payments, but as a result of keeping partners past 70 within the equity ranks, the bonus aspect would be eliminated.

Ex-Associate Wages Small Claims Battle Over $2,000 in Pay

A law firm is set to face off in a small claims trial on a back-pay claim by a former attorney who maintains he was cheated out of $2,000 when the law firm imposed a temporary 12 percent pay deferral on associates. The salary deferral imposed in 2008 was temporary and necessary in order to avoid layoffs during the economic downturn. Although only $2,000 is in dispute, thousands of dollars of legal fees have been spent by both sides, which claim they are fighting on principle. The associate sued the firm last year, alleging it committed breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation by refusing to repay him the 12 percent deducted from his paycheck for several months. He also alleges the firm's deferrals violated its own employment contract and policy manual. He claims the firm misrepresented the deferral and they turned into salary reductions for those who left the firm. The firm used the deferrals to induce lawyers to stay because only those who stayed would get reimbursed, his complaint says. The firm said it only repaid "those who were loyal."

Rule On Lead Safety Set to Take Effect
After almost two decades of delays, the Environmental Protection Agency is on track to implement a regulation requiring the construction industry to help prevent cases of lead poisoning among children. The agency said it expected more than 125,000 renovation and remodeling contractors to be trained and certified in lead-safe work practices when the new regulation takes effect. Under the rule, workers would have to take steps like containing their work area with plastic and conducting a thorough cleanup of lead paint dust stirred up during construction activity, which federal officials say is partly to blame for about 120,000 cases of elevated lead levels in children younger than 6 each year. Congress passed legislation in 1992 directing the EPA to propose the regulation, but the agency did not finish the rule until 2008, after environmental and public interest groups filed a lawsuit to pressure the agency to issue it. Some environmental groups are now pushing to make the rule tougher, while builders are warning their clients that it will inevitably increase construction costs. The rule applies to work performed in homes and buildings occupied by children, including schools and day care centers built before lead paint was banned in 1978.

Former Employee Files Defamation Lawsuit Against BabyAge.com
Executives at Wilkes-Barre-based BabyAge.com targeted Jewish employees, plotting to purge them from high-level positions and justifying their dismissals with allegations of theft, according to a lawsuit filed by an ousted former employee. The lawsuit claims executives often referred to Jewish workers as "(expletive) Jews" and would call them members of a "blood sucking tribe." The former employee is suing the company for breach of contract, defamation of character and invasion of privacy. He is demanding at least $270,000 in damages. He claims he suffered unfair treatment and "endured severe and pervasive harassment" at BabyAge.com. The company, which sells baby bedding, furniture, strollers, car seats, cribs and toys through an online marketplace, operates a 50,000-square-foot warehouse facility and headquarters in Wilkes-Barre. The man was retained as a technology consultant in 2008. The company's CEO confronted him in 2009 and told him that he did not want a "Jew Boy Club" in the office and railed against Jewish holidays, telling the employee that he did not want him to use vacation time for religious observances. The CEO once again confronted the employee a few months later to tell him his contract had been terminated, announcing his dismissal in front of approximately 45 other employees and accusing him of being a thief.

Sex Bias Suit Against Novartis to Start
A class action lawsuit alleging that Novartis Pharmaceuticals practices sex discrimination against female employees is set to go to trial in federal court in New York. The complaint seeks more than $200 million in damages on behalf of more than 5,600 female sales employees. The suit alleges Novartis, the United States subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant, discriminated against women in pay and promotions - especially women who became pregnant. Women in sales positions at the company received an average of $105 a month less than men in comparable jobs from 2002 through 2007. Novartis denies the claims and is proud of its record in hiring and promoting women. Novartis had been cited by Working Mother magazine as one of the 100 best companies in the nation for 10 years in a row. The lead lawyer for the 17 current and former Novartis workers who filed the suit in 2004 says Novartis continues to discriminate against women. He claims the case is one of the largest class action discrimination lawsuits to ever reach trial.

Law Firm Responds to Age Bias Suit
A law firm has fought back against an age discrimination suit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stemming from the firm's policy of stripping partners of their equity at age 70. The EEOC sued the firm on behalf of a 79-year-old lawyer who complained the firm's compensation practices discriminated against senior partners, but the firm in its answer contended that the lawyer was a partner, not an employee, and thus not entitled to federal employee protections. The firm also argued that it had compensated him fairly and had not retaliated against him after he complained to the EEOC. The agency had said that after the lawyer filed his complaint, the firm reduced his bonus to $25,000 to $75,000. The case is being closely watched within the legal industry because of its possible implications for the circumstances whereby law firm partners would be treated as employees under federal law. The EEOC contends the lawyer was an employee and entitled to protection under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The firm in its answer disagreed, saying the lawyers the EEOC was suing on behalf of "are not and were not 'employees' of the firm" and are not covered by federal employee protections.

Public Works Firings Overturned
Portrayed as a purge of fugitive felons, a Pittsburgh Public Works Department crackdown last year on six employees accused of failing to disclose criminal pasts has ended in reversals and a tab for tens of thousands of dollars in back pay. Arbitration awards reversing the firings represent the cost of "a knee-jerk-type reaction by the current administration, without real consideration of factors that are normally considered to be prudent in labor relations," said an attorney for the Pittsburgh Joint Collective Bargaining Committee. The mayor's administration announced the firings months after a local television station uncovered criminal records that were not disclosed on employment applications, and days after a story on inconsistent discipline in the Department of Public Works. The stated reason for the firings was the workers' failure to disclose felony convictions on job applications. The city promptly returned two men to work when they showed that they weren't convicted of felonies prior to applying. A third made a similar case but wasn't immediately reinstated. Three of the workers went to arbitration, and the first two won their cases. The arbitrator ruled that the city "delayed excessively its investigation" of their backgrounds, and never presented credible evidence that there was cause to fire them. The arbitrator awarded back pay, which based on their earnings history could exceed $20,000 each, minus any earnings or unemployment compensation they got while off work.

Defense: Deputy Merited Punishment
A deputy suffered from his own ineptitude at the Allegheny County Sheriff's Office, not because of his cooperation in an FBI investigation of the office, lawyers have told a federal jury. The jury will soon begin deliberations on his federal civil rights lawsuit that claims the upper echelon of the office has been retaliating against him since 2005 for speaking out against racial discrimination in the office and testifying in an FBI investigation that ended a former sheriff's career. The deputy claims he faced harsher discipline than other deputies and was bypassed for promotions by the former sheriff and his successor. He testified that his troubles began when he refused to buy tickets to a fundraising event for the sheriff. The defense has cited several violations on the part of the deputy, including twice leaving a murder suspect alone in a courtroom, continuing to moonlight as a security guard at a nuisance bar after he was ordered to stop and taking a marked sheriff's vehicle on a 100-mile side trip to a casino in Niagara Falls when he was in New York to pick up a prisoner.

9th Circuit Orders New Trial for Fired Workers
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for 23 women who say a California company illegally fired them because of their limited fluency in English. The panel said the district court erroneously allowed attorneys for the company, an Indiana-headquartered piping system manufacturer, to use peremptory challenges to boot three Hispanic jurors. "Taking into account the fact that the company used its strikes disproportionately against Hispanic jurors in a case involving claims of national origin discrimination against Hispanic workers. The district court's conclusion that the company's proffered reasons were not pretexts for discrimination was clearly erroneous," the panel concluded. The 23 Latino and Southeast Asian women sued the company in 1999, alleging that the company violated their civil rights by terminating them after they failed to pass and English-language test of their job skills. In 2008, a jury ruled in favor of the company. Shortly after the initial lawsuit was filed, the company sold its California plant to new owners, who rehired two-thirds of the plaintiffs.

Pittsburgh Officials Must Delete Mental Health Notes from Minutes
Pittsburgh officials agreed to remove any references in meeting minutes to a city employee undergoing a psychiatric exam, according to a court order from a federal lawsuit the employee filed against the city. The judge approved the settlement between the city and the unnamed employee who sued because three sets of Civil Service Commission minutes available on the Internet refer to him being tested to determine if he was fit for duty. The judge barred the city from publishing future references to the employee's medical history or condition. The agreement doesn't settle damages the employee is seeking against the city.

Cancer Question Complicates 9/11 Deal
Of all the illnesses people fear might be caused by toxic dust from the World Trade Center, nothing scares people like cancer. Hundreds of people are suing New York City over cancer diagnoses they received after working at Ground Zero. A judge recently rejected a $575 million legal settlement for thousands of sick 9/11 responders in part because he thought it should contain more money for cancer victims. Yet, statistics show that cancer rates among those who worked in Trade Center rubble are in line with rates among the general public. The three major research efforts tracking the health of Ground Zero responders have so far failed to turn up evidence linking any type of cancer to the dust. Many of the cancers now afflicting Ground Zero workers are common. There are plenty of theories as to how the dust might cause cancer, but little proof. Even the scientists more concerned about a potential tie say the length of time it takes for many cancers to develop means it could by years before cases related to 9/11 begin to emerge.

Claiming Panic Attacks from Workload, Legal Secretary Sues Firm Over Firing
Are law firm staff layoffs creating unmanageable workloads for so-called survivors? They are at a Seattle firm, according to a lawsuit filed by a former secretary who claims she was unfairly fired by the firm after suffering panic attacks brought on by unrealistic work demands following staff layoffs. She claims the firm wrongfully terminated her and violated Oregon's family leave act as well as the state's disability and discrimination and retaliation laws. She is seeking nearly $1 million, according to the complaint. She claims to have informed her supervisor several times that her increased workload was causing her stress, affecting her ability to sleep and causing her to make mistakes. She finally suffered a panic attack while at work and told a human resources representative that she needed a lighter workload. The representative indicated that would happen, but no changes were made until her second panic attack and her firing one day later.

Former Jail Guard Files Suit Over Dismissal
A retired National Guardsman diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after serving a year in Iraq is suing Westmoreland County, saying that his former employer fired him without taking his condition into account. He worked as a correctional officer in the Westmoreland County Prison from 1995 until 2009. During that time, he attained the rank of sergeant and received several commendations - including saving an inmate who attempted to hang himself. However, he claims in his federal lawsuit that when he started experiencing problems stemming from a one-year stint in Iraq that ended in 2006, the county failed to take his disorder into account. In early 2007, he violated prison policy by taking a pocketknife to work with him. When he was confronted about it, he had an emotional breakdown. He ended up spending two weeks at a veterans' medical center, where he was diagnosed with PTSD. A jail psychiatrist also came to the same diagnosis. Though he returned to work, he had to sign a last-chance agreement - if he had any further problems, he would be fired. Though he asked to be transferred either to a different position where he would not be required to work in the units directly with prisoners or to a different county position entirely, no accommodations were made. Instead, he was fired when he refused to sign a form after his employers confronted him with a surveillance video that did not mesh with employee time logs.

High Court to Decide Whether Anti-Retaliation Shield Protects Only Those Who Complain in Writing
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a retaliation lawsuit that seeks to answer a seemingly simple question: What does it mean to "file a complaint"? That question lies at the heart of a case in which a Wisconsin factory worker claimed he was unlawfully fired after verbally complaining to his bosses about the placement of time clocks. The employer argued that only written complaints - not oral ones - are protected activity under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2009. According to court records, the employee sued the company in 2007, alleging he was fired for complaining that employees were not being properly paid for time spent putting on and taking off protective clothing because of where the company put the time clocks. His verbal complaint, he argued, was covered under the FLSA, which offers retaliation protection to an employee "who has filed any complaint" against an employer. The company argued that oral complaints cannot be considered "filed," and because he never submitted his complaint in writing, he wasn't covered under the FLSA. The company contends that he was fired because he repeatedly violated the company's time clock punch policy.

Halliburton Ends Supreme Court Appeal in Case of Employee's Alleged Rape by Co-Workers
The high-profile case of a Halliburton/KBR employee who claims she was raped by co-workers in a barracks in Iraq in 2005 won't be considered by the Supreme Court. Lawyers for KBR, who had sought to force her complaint into arbitration as called for by her employment contract rather than being resolved in federal court, have withdrawn the company's petition for high court review. Analysts believe the case was withdrawn because of the so-called Franken Amendment. Following publicity about her case, Congress passed a defense appropriation last year with a provision prohibiting any contractor receiving federal defense funds from enforcing a contract that mandates use of arbitration to resolve civil rights, harassment and other types of disputes. 

Judge's Rejection of 9/11 Settlement Raises Questions About Asserted 'Power of Review'
A judge's rejection of a settlement between New York City and some 10,000 plaintiffs who claimed to have suffered respiratory ailments during the World Trade Center response and cleanup has left the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the city and its contractors who had spent almost two years negotiating the settlement wondering what to do next. The judge called the $575 million to $657 million settlement inadequate and potentially confusing to plaintiffs. While he acknowledged that most settlements are private and the judge has no part in them, "this is different. This is 9/11. This is a case that has dominated my docket, and because of that, I have the power of review," he said. The legal teams are now considering their options. They can go back to the bargaining table; proceed at full speed to trial on 12 "bellwether" cases selected by the parties and the judge; or possibly file a petition for a writ of mandamus with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping a panel will order the judge to accept the settlement. The last option is problematic, because there is no precedent on point for appellate review of a judge's refusal to accept what he believes to be an inadequate settlement in mass tort litigation.

Panel Dismisses Wilkes-Barre Appeal of $1 Million Arbitration Award
The City of Wilkes-Barre has lost its latest round in a two-year dispute to overturn a $1 million arbitration decision in favor of firefighters. A panel with the Commonwealth Court dismissed Wilkes-Barre's petition for a review of the award, which was made after a 2007 grievance filed by the firefighters union over the failure to provide a pay increase equal to one for city police. As a result, the city must increase union members' wages by $1,500 a year, pay retired members increases that occurred over a three-year span that total $1 million and adjust the pensions of retired members. The city contended the Luzerne County Court used a narrow scope in deciding whether to accept evidence in reviewing its petition filed in 2008 and upheld the arbitrator's decision. The city wanted to introduce a letter from the union's president from 2004 showing he was aware of the increases almost three years before filing the grievance. The city argued that the letter showed he had misled the arbitrator, leading to an improper proceeding. However, the judge found that the "evidence is not new. If the city had acted with reasonable diligence it could have produced the letter during the arbitrator's hearing."

More Work Needed to Reach Fair 9/11 Settlement, Judge Says
A federal judge has scuttled a proposed settlement of lawsuits filed by more than 10,000 Ground Zero workers seeking compensation for health problems triggered by their exposure to ash and dust spewed into the air after the 9/11 terror attacks. The judge has ordered the parties to renegotiate a deal, complaining that it provided too much money for attorneys and insufficient information for plaintiffs. The settlement proposal would have given cleanup and recovery workers from $575 million to $657 million, but each person's amount would be based on a complicated point system that the judge said "would make a Talmudic scholar's head spin." In the end, some workers would have received only a few thousand dollars while others might qualify for $1 million or more. Under the terms of the deal, workers were given just 90 days to decide whether they wanted to participate, a time the judge suggested was too short to make one of the most important decisions of their lives. "A plaintiff should know what approximately he gets at the end of the day. I will not preside over a settlement borne of fear or ignorance," he said.

Hooters Workers File Class Action Over Tips and Uniforms
Five current and former Hooters workers filed suit in Sacramento County Superior Court on behalf of a proposed class of nonmanager employees in five franchises. The complaint claims the restaurant chain workers were improperly forced to share tips with managers and to buy their own uniforms, among other alleged wage-and-hour violations. The complaint filed in Sacramento makes 11 claims, focusing on the company's "Hooters Concept" and "Hooters System" as a set of "core" practices that violate wage-and-hour rights. The complaint draws heavily from the Hooters Employee Handbook to argue that workers' uniforms and manicured appearance form a "cornerstone" of the company, and that requiring them to pay for uniforms violates California wage-and-hour laws.

Federal Judge Orders More Talks on 9/11 Deal
The federal judge overseeing litigation between the city and workers at Ground Zero has rejected a settlement, telling lawyers that it did not provide enough compensation to plaintiffs and needed to be renegotiated under his supervision. The decision by the judge came in a hearing immediately after the settlement was announced following more than six years of legal maneuvering. The settlement provided for payouts totaling $575 million to $657.5 million in cases filed by some 10,000 rescue and cleanup workers who say they suffered health damages from toiling at Ground Zero after the 2001 terrorist attack. The judge had previously given signs that he intended to closely oversee how the settlement was carried out to ensure that individual workers were treated fairly. He also issued an order stripping lawyers on the two sides of sole authority to choose an administrator and a medical panel to evaluate the plaintiffs' claims and said court approval would be needed. However, at the hearing, the judge went much further, declaring that the settlement was "not enough" and that he was taking "judicial control." He said that he was concerned that the fees going to the plaintiffs' lawyers - about one-third of the settlement - would take "a very large bite" and that he planned to review them. The judge said those fees should be paid by the same insurance company that is to cover any settlement and has been covering legal fees incurred by the city. It reserves stand at $1.1 billion. The judge also said that the terms of the settlement were too complicated for the plaintiffs to be able to reach an "intelligent decision" on whether to accept it.

Georgia Appeals Panel Revives Survivors' Suits Over Courthouse Shooting
Almost five years to the day after a murderous rampage at a Georgia courthouse, the Georgia Court of Appeals has revived civil suits filed by two surviving staff members of a slain Superior Court judge. The court overturned a lower court's dismissal of the suits against the former sheriff of Fulton County and seven co-defendants, all but one of whom are or were sheriff's deputies on the day the killer escaped. The shooter, who was on trial for rape, attacked and overpowered a lone female deputy escorting him to court, stole her gun and entered the judge's chambers, holding the two plaintiffs at gunpoint and leaving them handcuffed while he entered the courtroom and shot the judge and a court reporter. As he fled the courthouse, he killed two law enforcement officers. Civil cases against the sheriff and deputies were subsequently filed by his victims and their survivors. The women's suit alleged that the defendants should be held liable for damages stemming from the false imprisonment, assault and emotional distress they suffered at the hands of the shooter, which they blamed on the defendants' "willful, wanton, or malicious negligence or reckless misconduct and breach of the defendants' duties to protect" them. The order revives two of five remaining cases stemming from the incident.

Jury Finds Plaintiffs Lawyers Defrauded Railroad in Asbestos Suit
When a federal jury returned a verdict against two Mississippi plaintiffs lawyers, finding that they had committed fraud against Illinois Central Railroad, it was the culmination of the railroad's seven-year battle to fight back against abusive asbestos claims. The jury found that the attorneys lied when they denied knowing that their clients had previously settled asbestos claims that should have barred them from filing against the railroad. The clients were also defendants in the case, but the jurors held them blameless for settling with Illinois Central for a total of $210,000. Instead, the jury deemed the lawyers responsible and directed them to pay the company $210,000 in compensatory damages and an equal sum in punitives. In recent years, target companies have become more sensitive to litigation abuse and more willing to ferret it out. This may mark the first case in which plaintiffs attorneys under these circumstances were held accountable at trial.

Sex Harassment Suit Given Surprise Third Shot at 11th Circuit
Two men who are suing Home Depot for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation will have their case heard by the entire 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - and they didn't even have to ask. In an order that surprised the plaintiffs, the court announced it had decided on its own to have the whole court rehear the case, which claims that a male human resources manager made numerous, unwanted sexual advances toward the plaintiffs, telling one of them, "You're the Italian heifer that I like." Both men allege they were fired in retaliation for complaining about the manager. The court had twice previously affirmed a dismissal of the sexual harassment claims. Just days before the 11th Circuit's order, plaintiffs' lawyers had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the dismissal of the sexual harassment claims. Home Depot has denied that it fired the two men because they complained of sexual harassment and accused Home Depot of failing to address their complaint. Instead, the company said, the men were fired because they used company cell phones for personal use - in violation of company policy - and approved markdowns not consistent with company policy. 

Court Upholds Decision to Dismiss Suit
A federal appeals court has upheld a decision that dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former state police sergeant. The three-judge panel indicated that when he questioned the investigation into the death of a 12-year-old boy, he was doing so as part of his job - and not as a private citizen - and was not entitled to free speech protections. Essentially, the opinion upheld a prior ruling that he only spoke to his superiors about the investigation, making it part of his job. He claimed that after he questioned the facts surrounding the boy's death, he was subject to unwarranted discipline from two superiors that forced him into retirement for fear he would lose his job.

Workers Plan to Sue Aramark Over Overtime Pay
Aramark Corp., the huge Philadelphia food service company, routinely cheats local stadium workers out of overtime pay while getting them to work through lunch and breaks without compensation, a union leader has announced. Several Aramark workers are among plaintiffs who have filed a summons in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court signaling their intention to follow it with a class action lawsuit. Damages could reach $2 million and involve 3,000 stadium workers at three different stadiums. In 2009, Aramark, without admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay $154,320 plus attorneys' fees to settle a similar case involving 419 workers at the Philadelphia Convention Center. Among the plaintiffs is a cook assigned to a cafeteria. From 2004 to 2008, when the Phillies had a home game, he finished his shift at the cafeteria and went to the ballpark to serve the crowd there. The same thing happened when the Eagles played at Lincoln Financial Field. Sometimes his stadium stints would amount to an extra 25 to 30 hours a week, but he said he never received overtime pay. Last year, company officials told him he couldn't get the extra hours because "we can't afford to pay you overtime."

Lawyers Urge WTC Workers to Take Settlement
Lawyers and city officials expressed confidence that they can get responders to sign on to a settlement that would pay up to $657 million to workers who developed health problems after toiling in the ruins of the World Trade Center. Thousands of workers who claim to have been sickened by dust and debris will have three months to decide whether to accept the package. If 95 percent don't say yes, the deal is off. The decision will be a complicated one, but a lead attorney for the firm that negotiated the settlement said most of the feedback from clients so far has been good. With 10,000 plaintiffs involved in the case, success isn't assured. Only $575 million of the settlement is guaranteed. Some workers will qualify for only the minimum payment of $3,250. Any award they get could be depleted by a third or more once the plaintiffs' lawyers take their cut.

Second Ex-Guard Files Suit
A second former guard at the Westmoreland County Prison has filed a lawsuit claiming he was improperly fired after a botched internal investigation into allegations that an inmate was beaten by corrections officers. He was fired for allegedly encouraging a guard to lie during an investigation of the beating. His lawsuit claims the prison's warden was negligent and supplied false information to members of the county prison board about the findings of an internal investigation into allegations that guards assaulted the inmate last year. That investigation resulted in the firing of four guards. Prison officials said they believe the inmate was taken from his cell for talking back to a guard. Officials said he was taken to an office, where he was allegedly assaulted by two corrections officers while two others looked on. An unemployment compensation referee later determined that the guard's actions were not willful misconduct. He claims the county was negligent in not ensuring there was "a sufficient factual basis that would allow the conclusion that the plaintiff engaged in directing a fellow corrections officer to lie." He is seeking unspecified money damages in the lawsuit, but is not asking to be returned to his job at the jail. A similar lawsuit was filed by another guard earlier this year.

Paid Time Off for Illness Often Not Allowed
Congress' Joint Economic Committee recently released a report saying that 40 percent of employees in the private sector have no paid sick leave. Currently, proposed legislation exists in federal, Pennsylvania and Philadelphia legislatures that would require paid sick time. Though eligibility thresholds vary under the proposed measures, the federal bill would provide seven unpaid days; the state's bill, six; and the the city's, nine. In general, larger companies tend to provide paid leave; however, nationwide, only half of companies employing fewer than 50 workers do. Union workers are more likely than nonunion to have paid sick leave. Low-wage workers, those earning less than $10.63 an hour, are less likely to be covered. Of those, only 7.9 million, or 35 percent, receive paid sick leave. By contrast, 83 percent of the highest-wage workers, those earning more than $28.47 an hour, can count on paid sick time.

Workers' Compensation Hearing Focuses On Nepotism
Alleged nepotism in hiring at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility took center stage during a workers' compensation hearing for a former deputy warden. The county's commissioner denied accusations by the former deputy warden that she pressured him into hiring unqualified friends and targeted his job due to a political vendetta. Meanwhile, a prison employee revealed that before a new warden was hired in 2008, "you had to know someone to get a job in the jail" and the requests came from all over. "Everybody, commissioners, judges, magistrates, police officers, would be saying, 'Give this person a shot,'" a former prison secretary said. "Prison management wanted to know whose person it was." A hiring list of the politically connected trumped applications from other qualified candidates, she noted. Seeking to receive weekly $800 payments from the county's workers' compensation fund, the former deputy warden claims he suffers from work-related stress due to pressures brought on by the commissioner's hiring requests and threats, the suicide of a co-worker, his attendance at an inmate's autopsy and the publicity he received for outing a drug-dealing prison guard. He was on medical leave until he was laid off. He testified about how he "blacked out" one day at work from the stress and suffers from anxiety, panic attacks and nightmares.

California Farm Worker Case May Clarify Definition of 'Employer'
Farm workers filled the California Supreme Court to hear arguments in a case about unpaid wages that could affect millions of low-paid employees in related professions across the business spectrum. The court is being asked to define what constitutes an employer within the meaning of state Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. In the case at hand, farm workers contend that two companies that market and sell strawberries fall within that meaning and are liable for the unpaid wages of about 180 berry pickers after the independent contractor who hired them became insolvent. Two attorneys representing the marketing companies said after oral arguments that the court's ruling will have an impact on any business relationship in which a company hires an independent contractor. One mentioned department stores' contracts with shoemakers, while an amicus curiae brief filed by several legal services groups cited food delivery services for restaurants and janitors working for subcontractors of large management companies. After not getting paid for harvesting berries in 2000, farm workers sued a grower and two sales and marketing companies, alleging that all three were employers as defined by the IWCs wage orders as anyone who exercises "control over wages, hours or working conditions." The two companies loaned the grower money under a complex contract that gave them the right to sell the fruit he grew and oversee his operations. After the grower filed for bankruptcy, the farm workers focused their attention on the two companies, saying that the IWC also defined employers as anyone who "suffers or permits any person to work." An appellate court disagreed, holding that the companies "did not exercise sufficient control over the workers and the agricultural operation" to be employers.

Laid-Off Secretary Sues Firm, Alleges Associate Threat Over Missing Fax
A former law firm secretary claims in a wrongful termination suit that an associate at the firm had once threatened to bring an Uzi to work and kill people if an important fax wasn't located. The secretary, who was with the firm for 28 years, lost her job in a series of layoffs. The suit says that when the Uzi comment was made, she complained to superiors, filed a police report and took a three-month disability leave. She argues that she was in a San Francisco plaza when a man shot 11 people in 1982. She alleges she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder from the incident that remained latent until the associate's comment. She was afraid to go to work for several months.

Police Department Sued by Ex-Cops, Constable Claiming Race-Based Dangers
Two former Darby Borough police officers and the borough constable have filed a federal lawsuit against the borough's mayor, police chief and other police officers, claiming that they were harassed and put in life-threatening situations because they are black. One officer claims a white officer pulled his service weapon on him in the squad room following a 2007 dispute over a flashlight. He then held the loaded gun inches from the black officer's head and said that he was going to "blow it off." Another officer accused his colleagues of risking his life by arriving late to requests for backup - or not showing up at all. He also charged in the suit that he was eventually excluded from responding to most calls, "except certain calls that the white officers didn't want to answer." The borough's elected constable claims that he'd been banned from taking prisoners to the borough jail and that he remains "fearful to execute any warrants because he is afraid that he will not receive backup."

Judge OKs FMLA Claims Against Individuals
In a ruling that defines the scope of individual liability under the Family and Medical Leave Act, a federal judge has refused to dismiss claims against a trio of human resources executives and a manager who allegedly set out to find a reason to fire a worker soon after learning that he needed to schedule a leave for surgery. In the suit, the plaintiff claims that just a few days after he informed his bosses of his need for surgery, he was called in to a meeting and confronted with a pornographic e-mail found on his work computer. He responded by filing a suit that named not only the company, but also the company president and four other individuals who, he claims, each played a role in orchestrating and carrying out a plan to violate his rights under the FMLA and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Attorneys for the individually named defendants argued that the weren't "any facts showing how each defendant was involved in plaintiff's alleged request for medical leave or the decision to terminate." The plaintiff argued that each of the five named defendants qualifies as an "employer" under the FMLA. The judge sided with the plaintiff, finding that while "conclusory" allegations are insufficient, the plaintiff had gone further by alleging that each of the individual defendants "participated in the forensic search of his computer with the goal of finding a reason to justify his termination because he had requested FMLA leave." The judge concluded that all five of the individuals were properly named as defendants because each one is alleged to have had the power to fire and to have played a role in the decision to oust the plaintiff.

Law Firm Sued in Overtime Pay Dispute
A former law firm secretary has sued the firm over overtime pay. She claims she worked at the firm between 2006 and 2008. In her complaint, she claims she was required to work more than 40 hours per week without proper compensation. The firm allegedly knew she was working extra hours, and "required this extra work as a condition of her employment." He suit claims that the firm had agreed to pay her 1 and 1/2 times her hourly wage for each hour over 35 in a week.

Teacher Punished for Distributing Jack London Essay Can Sue
A federal judge has ruled that a history teacher can pursue a claim that his constitutional rights were violated when he was suspended for placing copies of "The Scab," a pro-union essay written by Jack London, in three colleagues' mailboxes in 2008. The teacher targeted the other three teachers because they had crossed a picket line during a job action. The school board found that he had violated a policy banning labor activity on school property in the presence of students. He was suspended with pay for a week and warned that more dire consequences could follow, like loss of pay. The judge ruled that "The Scab" was protected speech and the threat of added consequences warranted rejection of the school board's motion for summary judgment. The teacher now has the chance to bring his First Amendment claim to trial. Under case law limiting the free speech rights of public employees, the school can still win if it proves his actions were disruptive.

Plaintiff Seeks to Dismiss Age Discrimination Suit Against Firm
A federal judge shot down on procedural grounds a former law firm employee's effort to drop the age discrimination suit she had filed against the firm. Last year, the employee brought a $300,000 lawsuit alleging that she was fired after 18 years with the firm because of her age. Recently, her lawyer filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the suit. However, the judge answered back that the attorney no longer has the power to drop the suit on behalf of her client. The judge found that "a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a voluntary notice of dismissal only if the opposing party has not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." The firm had responded to the suit, claiming she was fired for failing to "perform her job in a satisfactory manner" and not because of her age. The fired employee claimed that her supervisor at the firm routinely criticized her work and made her feel as though she was unable to learn new tasks because of her age before being let go.

VA to Reopen Gulf War Veterans' Files
The Veterans Affairs Department will re-examine the disability claims of what could be thousands of Gulf War veterans suffering from ailments they blame on their war service, the first step toward potentially compensating them nearly two decades after the war ended. The VA claims the decision is part of a "fresh, bold look" the department is taking to help veterans who have what's commonly called "Gulf War illness" and have long felt the government did little to help them. The VA says it also plans to improve training for medical staff who work with Gulf War vets, to make sure they do not simply tell vets that their symptoms are imaginary - as has happened to many over the years. The changes reflect a significant shift in how the VA may ultimately care for some 700,000 veterans who served in the Gulf War. It also could change how the department handles war-related illness suffered by future veterans. The decision comes just four months after the VA opened the door for as many as 200,000 Vietnam veterans to receive service-related compensation for three illnesses stemming from exposure to the Agent Orange herbicide. About 175,000 to 210,000 Gulf War veterans have come down with a pattern of symptoms that include rashes, joint and muscle pain, sleep issues and gastrointestinal problems, according to a 2008 congressionally mandated committee that based the estimate on earlier studies. What exactly caused the symptoms has long been unanswered. Independent scientists have pointed to pesticide and pyridostigmine bromide pills, given to protect troops from nerve agents, as probably culprits. The 2008 report noted that since 1994, $340 million has been spent on government research into the illness, but little has focused on treatments.

Judge Upholds Arbitration Award in Partner Retirement Dispute
A Philadelphia judge declined to vacate an arbitration award in a case brought against a local law firm by a retired partner over interpretations of amendments to the partnership agreement. In the case, a retired partner asked the judge to toss an arbitration award that found the firm's changes to its pension plan, in which the firm moved away from a formula and lifetime benefits to a capped yearly payment and 10-year limit on payouts, was applicable to the partner. He argued amendments to the firm's partnership agreement in 1999 became effective only after his retirement rights vested in 1993 and therefore did not apply to him. He officially retired from the firm in 2004. He based his argument on the Supreme Court's decision that amendments to a firm's partnership agreement could not reduce retirement benefits of partners who retired prior to the year amendments were made because their rights vested upon retirement. The amendment he took issue with reduced the amount of maximum yearly benefits and limited the payments to 10 years post-retirement rather than for life and purported to apply retroactively to all partners who retired prior to 2000. Under the agreement, once a partner reaches 25 years of service with the firm and is 65 years old, he could have retired with "full retired partner benefits." Partners can also retire between the ages of 60 and 65, regardless of time at the firm, and still receive some benefit. The partner was 60 in 1997 and had worked 25 years with the firm. He was therefore eligible to retire in 1998 under the partnership agreement, albeit with limited benefits because he was not 65. When the 1999 amendments went into effect, he was 62. However, unlike the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court's case, he had not elected to retire although he could have done so in 1998 before the amendments went into effect and would have been eligible for reduced retirement. Instead, in 1999, he remained an active partner of the firm. The issue, the firm argued, is whether having not elected to retire prior to the enactment of the 1999 amendment he is bound by it. The judge agreed with the firm and the arbitrator.

At Closing Plant, Ordeal Included Heart Attacks
A growing body of research suggests that layoffs can have profound health consequences. One 2006 study by a group of epidemiologists at Yale found that layoffs more than doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke among older workers. Another paper found that a person who lost a job had an 83 percent greater chance of developing a stress-related health problem, like diabetes, arthritis or psychiatric issues. In perhaps the most sobering finding, a study published last year found that layoffs can affect life expectancy. The paper examined death records and earnings data in Pennsylvania during the recession of the early 1980s and concluded that death rates among high-seniority male workers jumped by 50 percent to 100 percent in the year after a job loss, depending on the worker's age. Even 20 years later, deaths were 10 percent to 15 percent higher. That meant a worker who lost his job at age 40 had his life expectancy cut by a year to a year and a half.

Police Panel OKs Terms of Deal to Settle Lawsuit Filed by Latino Group
Reading's Police Diversity Board voted 4-0 to approve a police department diversity settlement in principle, the same one City Council approved last year. Under the terms of the settlement, police applicants who pass both the Civil Service Commission exam and then a test reading, writing and speaking Spanish will be given a 10-point preference for hiring. But before the city can hire them, it must rehire all police officers laid off by budget cuts. The diversity board also wants to have input into the selection of the Spanish language testing company. The Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition sued in 2003 to force the city to hire more Latinos for the police department. The diversity board was created in 2005 as a result of the suit.

Court OKs Privacy Suit Over Disclosure of HIV Status
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given a San Francisco man another chance to pursue a case for damages against the government after information on his HIV status was shared among several federal agencies. Noting the court hadn't previously determined the meaning of "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974, the opinion held that people who suffer after federal agencies violate the act are entitled to relief even if their damages aren't economic. A pilot sued in 2007 after the Social Security Administration gave his medical information to the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA was casting a wide net for pilots' benefit information as part of a broad investigation to uncover efforts by medically unfit individuals to obtain certifications to fly. The pilot hadn't told anyone but family and friends about his HIV status, and when he discovered that his medical information had been disclosed, he suffered "humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, fear of social ostracism, and other severe emotional distress." A year later, a judge agreed with the pilot that the agencies had violated the Privacy Act, which residents federal agencies from disclosing information gathered about individuals for one reason to other agencies for an unrelated purpose. However, the judge held that nonpecuniary damages, including emotional distress, didn't constitute "actual damages." The 9th Circuit has reversed and remanded the case to district court.

OSHA Issues No Ruling in Death of Pennsylvania Man
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has closed the books on its six-week investigation into the workplace death of a GE Transportation employee. The OSHA has no plans to levy fines or issue a report in the death, which occurred when the employee was operating a crane. Investigators found that many of GE's standards exceeded OSHA guidelines. GE also launched an investigation, which called on both internal sources and outside experts. The company concluded that the employee, who was using a remote control to operate a crane, had placed a 7,000-pound alternator on a platform about 20 inches off the ground. The company concluded that he had disconnected the hooks that had been used to lift the frame, but when he attempted to lift the crane, one of the hooks became snagged on the frame and knocked it over on top of him. OSHA also agreed with GE that there was no evidence of operator error, and OSHA could not come to any specific conclusion as to how this had occurred. The case has been officially closed.

Chicago May Face Uphill Fight in Firefighters Case at Supreme Court
The Supreme Court seemed supportive of arguments by Chicago minority firefighters that a new 300-day period for filing discrimination charges opened each time the city used scores from a discriminatory examination to hire someone. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund told the justices that Chicago on 11 occasions used unlawful cutoff scores on a qualifying exam to make hiring decisions. The case stems from a 1995 entry-level exam for firefighter positions. Based on test scores, the city divided 26,000 applicants into three categories: well qualified, qualified and not qualified. Although 37 percent of the applicants were African-American, only 11.5 percent of African-Americans were found to be "well qualified." The city drew solely from the "well qualified" pool when hiring 10 classes of firefighters between 1996 and 2001. A class of about 6,000 African-Americans who passed the exam but were not in the "well qualified" pool sued the city, alleging the exam had a disparate impact on African Americans in violation of Title VII. The city conceded the test had a disparate impact but argued the suit was time-barred. The Supreme Court will now focus arguments on the provision in Title VII requiring plaintiffs to file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission no more than 300 days after the unlawful employment action occurred. One of the plaintiffs in the suit had filed charges 430 days after the city announced the test results, but only 181 days after the second round of hiring based on the test results.

Wal-Mart Fired Lead Plaintiff in Sexual Harassment Suit, Lawyer Says
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. may have opened the door to yet more legal troubles when it fired the lead plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit along with the woman's husband. Her lawyer is planning to file retaliation charges against the retailer over what he called a "bizarre" decision to fire his client and her husband just weeks after the sexual harassment suit was filed. The plaintiff is one of several women who is suing Wal-Mart, alleging the retailer knowingly allowed an associate at a New York store to work alongside them, despite their complaints that he had sexually harassed them. The woman's lawyer also has an age discrimination suit pending against the same Wal-Mart store. That suit, filed by nine employees and seeking $20 million, alleges the store routinely fires older, more experienced workers and replaces them with younger, less experienced employees.

FTC and States Take Aim at 9 Alleged Job Scam Artists
The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general took another swipe at scams that target unemployed people, jointly or separately filing nine new lawsuits against alleged "con artists" who charge victims for bogus job leads. The FTC announced that it has filed seven more lawsuits, bringing its total to 11 such job scam suits since spring in what it's calling Operation Bottom Dollar. In one case, the FTC alleges that a company and its owner conned more than 100,000 people into buying booklets that promised to teach them how to earn $350 per week by sending 30 postcards a day in a solicitation campaign or $1,500 per week through "learning secrets" about the federal government bailout programs. The FTC also said it has partnered with online job search companies, including Monster.com, Microsoft Inc.'s Bing and Craigslist, to help job-seekers spot scams.

Fired Erie Assistant Public Defender to Get Job Back
A former Erie County assistant public defender fired in the waning months of the previous administration is set to get her old job back. The county executive claims she was unfairly dismissed last year over allegations that she had an inappropriate relationship with a former client who was also an inmate at the state prison. She filed a whistle-blower suit over her dismissal. The executive reviewed her case and found her firing to be "over the top." He also concluded that the county would lose if the suit were to go to trial. She had received outstanding performance reviews up until her firing. The executive also claims the evidence backed her statements that she met with the inmate on a personal basis only after she stopped representing him, and that the relationship was never sexual.

Danger of Marines' Water Removed from Report
An environmental contractor dramatically underreported the level of a cancer-causing chemical found in tap water at Camp Lejeune, then omitted it altogether as the Marine base prepared for a federal health review. The Marine Corps had been warned nearly a decade earlier abut the dangerously high levels of benzene, which was traced to massive leaks from fuel tanks at the base of the North Carolina coast, according to recently disclosed studies. For years, Marines who served at Camp Lejeune have blamed their families' cancers and other ailments on tap water tainted by dry cleaning solvents, and many accuse the military of covering it up. The benzene was discovered as part of a broader, ongoing probe into that contamination. When water was sampled in 1984, scientists found benzene in a well near the base's Hadnot Point Fuel Farm at levels of 280 parts per billion, according to water tests done by a contractor. A year later, in a report summarizing the 1984 sampling, the same contractor pointed out the benzene concentration "far exceeds" the safety limit set by federal regulators at 5 parts per billion. The Navy was warned again in 1991, and in 1992, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services, showed up at the base to begin a health risk assessment. That's when a third contractor released a draft report on the feasibility of fixing the overall problem. In it, the 1984 level on the well of 280 parts per billion had changed to 38 parts per billion. The company's final report on the well, issued in 1994, made no mention of the benzene.

Suit: Pittsburgh Violated Disability Law
A federal lawsuit challenges Pittsburgh's interpretation of federal disability law and state open records law. A city employee, identified only as "John Doe" in his lawsuit, claims the city's Civil Service Commission is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by publishing hearing minutes that refer to the employee undergoing a psychiatric examination. The employee's lawyer said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled more than a year ago that the minutes violate the federal law, but the city commission refuses to take them off its Web site. The city argues that state law requires it to post the minutes of civil service hearings.

EEOC Hit with $4.5 Million in Fees After Dismissal of Sexual Harassment Suit
A federal judge in Iowa has ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to pay $4.56 million in attorney fees and expenses to a trucking business after dismissing the agency's sexual harassment lawsuit. The fee award against the EEOC, while not unprecedented, is unusual and may be among the largest imposed by a federal court. The agency had alleged in its suit that the trucking company's lead drivers or team drivers had subjected approximately 270 female drivers to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment and that the company had failed to correct and protect them. A judge dismissed all of the agency's claims and granted summary judgment on the claim that the company tolerated a "pattern and practice" of sexual harassment against female drivers. "The EEOC has presented the court with anecdotal evidence to show that show members of the company's management occasionally violated its anti-sexual harassment policy by failing to respond appropriately to sexual harassment in the workplace," wrote the judge. "However, the EEOC has not compiled the company's failings in any meaningful way to show that it has a pattern or practice of tolerating sexual harassment in its workplace." The judge then dismissed the remaining claims of 67 women after finding the agency had "wholly abandoned it statutory duties" towards them by not conducting any investigation of their allegations.

Court Revives Age Discrimination Suit Against PriceWaterhouseCoopers
A federal appeals court has given new life to a suit brought by two PriceWaterhouseCooper employees who allege they were denied promotion to partnership due to their age. The court remanded the case to the trial court after reversing the dismissal of state claims brought under the New York Human Rights Law. The accounting giant's partnership agreement requires each partner to retire upon reaching age 60, though in some cases a partner may delay retirement until the age of 62. The firm hired one partner in 1988 when he was 44 and the other in 1989 when he was 49. Both have sued the firm twice, in 2002 and 2005, in complaints that allege age discrimination. In 2008, those claims were dismissed.

Former Dunkin' Donuts Vice President Sues Over Alleged Bad-Mouthing
A former executive at the Dunkin' Donuts fast-food chain is suing his ex-employer for $5 million, alleging the company has spoken so ill of him that he can't find another job. He alleges that a series of bad references and defamatory comments by Dunkin' officials have damaged his reputation in the restaurant industry and killed numerous job prospects over the last two years. Since leaving in 2007 under confidential circumstances, he's applied for jobs at Arby's, Papa John's, Wendy's, Buca di Beppo, Buffets Inc., and the Back Bay Restaurant Group, but to no avail. Bad references from Dunkin' officials killed those prospects, he claims in his lawsuit, alleging that officials defamed him with allegations of "excessive drinking, inappropriate conduct with female employees, chronic inability to meet deadlines, and a misleading and dishonest character." He claims he has been advised "by various recruiters and industry colleagues that he is essentially untouchable in the food services industry as the result of negative statements originating with Dunkin'," states his lawsuit. Dunkin' Brands is accused of violating a 2007 severance agreement that prohibits the company from disclosing the circumstances surrounding his departure. The deal also allegedly called for Dunkin' to refrain from making any disparaging comments about him that could hurt his reputation or future job prospects.

Proposed Changes to Psychiatric Manual Stir Lawsuit Fears
Employment lawyers are shaking their heads over this one: The American Psychiatric Association wants binge eating and excess gambling to be considered psychiatric disorders. The group has proposed that the problems be listed in the manual that's used nationwide to diagnose and treat mental disorders. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders won't be published until 2013, but lawyers already have plenty to say about the proposed disorders, which, some argue, could open up the door for yet more disability suits in the workplace. Some say declaring binge eating and gambling to be disorders will widen the pool of employees who can claim they're disabled, seek accommodations and potentially file a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act if the accommodation is not provided.

IRS and States Crack Down On Independent Workers
The Internal Revenue Service and 37 states are cracking down on companies that try to trim payroll costs by illegally classifying workers as independent contractors rather than as full employees. The practice costs governments billions in lost revenue and can leave workers high and dry when they are hurt or are left jobless. Many who have studied the problem believe it's worsened during the economic downturn, fueling even more aggressive recovery efforts by states. For a growing number of companies, cutting costs means removing workers from the payroll or bringing on new workers - sometimes through intermediary companies - without making them full employees. By designating workers as "independent contractors," businesses can save as much as 30 percent on payroll - avoiding unemployment insurance and workers' compensation payments, as well as the employer's share of payroll withholding.

Intellectual Property Boutique Faces Suit Alleging Wage-and-Hour Violations
An Ohio intellectual property boutique faces a suit alleging wage-and-hour violations and stands accused of misclassifying employees to avoid paying overtime. An estimated 40 legal secretaries have joined a putative class action against the firm, alleging they were misclassified intentionally to avoid paying them overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that none of them did any managerial work or directed the work of employees, or had authority to hire and fire. Under those circumstances, they allege, they do not fit within the executive exemption.

Former 911 Worker Sues County
A Pennsylvania woman is suing the Blair County Department of Emergency Services, saying that she quit her job in the 911 center after only 14 months because the work environment was so hostile. She filed a civil rights lawsuit asking for unspecified monetary damages and a court order that would bar the county from sexual harassment, gender discrimination and retaliation against other employees. She claims to have been a new employee at the center undergoing training when she heard senior employees saying "horrible, foul and nasty things about" her and other trainees, referring to them as "morons." She also alleges a supervisor used "foul, ignorant and vulgar names" to describe firefighters being dispatched by the center, another worker used similar language about a police officer who asked for a vehicle registration check, and workers used disrespectful terms face-to-face and behind the back of another 911 supervisor. She also claims that some workers would watch sexually explicit movies while in the communications room. She spoke to a director about the problem, and he did address the workers. However, afterwards, the workers proceeded to criticize the director, which led her resignation.

Employer Wellness Programs Asking Fewer Questions
Both the Senate and House healthcare bills propose incentives to boost corporate wellness programs that aim to help employees stay healthier and to keep a lid on a company's insurance costs. However, those programs have hit a legal speed bump with the recent enactment of a law that generally prohibits employers and insurers from asking workers about their family medical history. The first step in enrolling an employee is typically to ask him to complete a health risk assessment containing a dozen or more questions, including some about the employee's family history of medical conditions, but the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of genetic information in either health coverage or employment. That means that health plans can't use genetic information to make coverage decisions or set health insurance premiums. This year, insurers and other companies that roll out new wellness programs for employers are no longer permitted to ask people about their genetics or family history in health risk assessments if the answers are tied to any sort of reward, like a premium discount.

Firm Fires Back at Former Attorney's Discrimination Suit
A law firm responded forcefully to an ex-associate's suit that accuses the firm of denying her partnership because she is gay, ignoring he complaints about sexual harassment and instructing lawyers to write exaggerated negative performance reviews of unpopular associates. The $50 million suit was filed last year by a former Harvard Law School graduate who worked at the firm for a decade before the firm allegedly terminated her during the middle of an arbitration in 2009. She claimed that a litigation partner sexually harassed her; that partners told her to wear more feminine clothing; and that firm higher-ups retaliated agaisnt her for complaining. In their response, the firm denied all her allegations and argued that she failed to state a valid claim, failed to seek other remedies and missed the statute of limitations deadline.

Firm Seeks Summary Judgment in Discrimination Case
A law firm has asked a federal judge to grant summary judgment in a closely watched race discrimination case. The suit, filed by a former staff attorney, accuses the firm of discriminating against black staff attorneys by not allowing them to be promoted to associate. She also alleges that the firm's job assignment policy is discriminatory because it has a disparate impact on black staff attorneys. Earlier this year, a judge dismissed her claim that the non-promotion policy was discriminatory because it was time-barred. The judge, however, allowed her claim that the firm's job assignment policy is discriminatory because the firm's annual performance evaluations restarted the time frame for potential misconduct. In its motion for summary judgment, the firm says that she lacks the proper standing to file a discrimination suit because she was not personally affected by any of the firm's alleged discriminatory policies. Because she only applied for a staff attorney position and never sought a job as an associate, the firm argues that she "could not have been injured by any hiring criteria that would have a disparate impact on African Americans who sought to be hired as associates, counsel or partners." Their motion says that she viewed her job as a staff attorney as a way to "pay the bills" as she pursued a career as a writer.

Deputy Warden Says Job-Related Anxiety Entitles Him to Workers' Compensation
Testifying at a workers' compensation hearing, a former deputy warden recalled his last day at a Pennsylvania correctional facility, claiming he "blacked out" and woke up in a hospital bed. He also claims he still has nightmares, "extreme anxiety" and panic attacks. He alleges that he suffers from work-related stress and is entitled to payments from the county workers' compensation fund. The county is contesting his claim, arguing that the deputy warden suffered from anxiety and stress when he was not working at the prison. If awarded workers' compensation, he would get more than $800 a week while he remained injured. The former deputy warden blames the county commissioner for his condition and claimed she pressured him to recommend hiring and promoting unqualified employees. He also claims she threatened his job after she became a commissioner in 2008.

Broker Settles Lawsuit with JPMorgan Over Age Discrimination
One of the nation's largest investment banks has settled a federal lawsuit with an Erie-based broker who claimed he lost his job because of his age. The 64-year-old former vice president of JPMorgan's Erie office claimed the company improperly eliminated his position and filled it with a 43-year-old broker who was once his assistant. JPMorgan argued that the suit was meritless and said "all of the decisions of JPMorgan were based upon legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons other than age, including legitimate business needs." The former vice president was seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement to his position and payment of lost wages, including more than $175,000 in bonuses, or commissions based on sales, that he said JPMorgan wrongfully failed to pay him.

Judge Dismisses Part of Discrimination Case Against Firm
A federal judge ruled that part, but not all, of a former staff attorney's discrimination suit against her firm may move forward. In the ruling, the judge shot down on procedural grounds her allegation that the firm's policy of not promoting staff attorneys to associate was discriminatory. The attorney had argued that by not promoting staff attorneys, whom she claims are disproportionately black, the firm had instituted a discriminatory policy. The judge wrote that because the attorney had failed to file a claim against the firm's non-promotion policy, which was implemented in 2006, until 2008, she had missed her window. But the judge ruled to allow her to go forward with her claim that the firm's job-assignment policy is discriminatory. Young has argued that the job-assignment policy is discriminatory because it has a disparate impact on black staff attorneys. Noting that at this stage of the case, the court is required to take a plaintiff's allegations at face value, the judge determined that the allegation was not barred by the statute of limitations. The judge drew a distinction between the two claims based on the recurrent nature of the film's alleged actions. He wrote that the non-promotion policy was a one-time incident, and covered by the statute of limitations. The job-assignment policy was not, the judge determined, because of the cyclical nature of the firm's annual performance evaluations, which it uses to allocate assignments. Each evaluation restarted the time frame for potential misconduct, and thus, for filing a claim, he found.

Former Prison Guard Sues Westmoreland County Over Firing
A former Westmoreland County Prison guard who was fired last year following an internal investigation into an inmate beating has sued the county for wrongful termination. The former guard contends the county was negligent when it investigated allegations by an inmate that he was beaten by guards. The guard was one of four fired by the Prison Board. Prison officials believe the prisoner was taken from his cell for talking back to a guard. Officials said he was taken to an office, where he was assaulted by two corrections officers while two other guards looked on. In the lawsuit, the former guard argues that the county breached its policy by misapplying its ethics code to justify the firing. County officials contend that the guard attempted to cover up the beating to help his fellow guards. The guard however, cited a ruling by a state Unemployment Compensation judge that found the guard did not violate any of the county's rules or policies and that the county failed to meet its burden of proof to establish any willful misconduct on the guard's part. He is not seeking to be reinstated to his $34,000 a year job, but is asking for money damages for his loss of reputation, costs associated with finding new work and a "blackened character."

Law Firm Compensation System Allegedly Discriminates Against Older Partners
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a law firm for its use of a compensation system that the agency claims discriminates against attorneys based on their age. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a labor and employment partner and a class of other "similarly situated employees." The EEOC claims the firm discriminated against the partner and other partners by forcing them to give up their equity at age 70 and earn less than younger attorneys in the firm with similar collections and billings. The lawsuit comes more than two years after another firm agreed to pay a $27.5 million settlement to resolve an EEOC suit in Chicago accusing the firm of discriminating against 32 partners on the basis of age. That suit stemmed from the firm's 2000 decision to de-equitize those partners. A ruling by a judge in 2002 held that the EEOC had sufficiently alleged that the firm's partners might qualify as employees. As part of the 2007 settlement, the firm agreed that "each person for whom the EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee." In the present case, the EEOC claims the employment practices at issue have been in operation since at least 2001. Under the firm's partnership agreement, all lawyers who reach age 70 who want to continue practicing must give up their equity interest and management duties, the complaint states. Senior lawyers are then compensated through an annual bonus whose amount the EEOC says is at the discretion of the firm's management committee.

Law Firm Slapped with $30 Million Racial Discrimination Suit
A former associate has filed suit against her former employer, alleging that the law firm routinely subjected her to discriminatory treatment based on her race. The black woman who was born in Jamaica says in her complaint that the firm violated the D.C. Human Rights Act by retaliating against her, creating a hostile work environment and inflicting emotional distress, both intentionally and negligently. She has asked for $30 million. The complaint says that she started at the firm in 2009 after being heavily recruited. At some point after joining, she began being removed from projects despite receiving compliments on her work from several partners. She says her workplace was shifted to a different floor from that of her other lawyers. When she reached out to the office's managing partner, she was told that "because she was an 'impressive woman,' she made white employees uncomfortable. The complaint alleges that she was also told that because she was the first black associate to work in the office, the office staff's treatment of her might be influenced by the fact that "they had never before been forced to be in a 'subordinate position' to a black person." The complaint goes on to allege that the situation only got worse when she reached out to firm leaders. After sending an email to eight members of the diversity committee outlining the discriminatory treatment, she was fired. Since then, she has been unable to find work, which she claims is because the firm accused her of taking confidential documents from the firm. She also claims to have suffered emotional distress.

Maryland Court Upholds $1.7 Million Verdict Against Felt Maker
A dryer-felt maker failed to create enough doubt that a paper mill worker was exposed to asbestos in its products to overcome a $1.7 million judgment against the company, a Maryland appeals court has ruled. The evidence proved that the worker was significantly exposed to the defendant's product, which is all that is required to uphold the verdict. The plaintiff worked at a pulp and paper mill for more than 10 years cleaning dryer felts. He later developed the fatal lung cancer mesothelioma and sued several companies. After he settled with some defendants, a jury found a dryer fabrics company liable for negligently failing to warn him of the dangers of exposure to asbestos in its products. The company made asbestos-containing dryer felts that the worker said were used in machines he worked with for 13 months. The company had argued that the worker did not show its product was a substantial contributing factor to his mesothelioma. The company said the unique characteristics of its products make it "exceedingly unlikely" that a mill worker could be exposed to asbestos in them. The appeals court, however, cited evidence that the plaintiff worked for more than a year on a machine that ran one of the company's asbestos-containing felts.

2009 Discrimination Complaints Neared Record High
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that workplace discrimination complaints remain at historically high levels as the agency saw 93,277 such complaints in fiscal year 2009 - the second-highest level in its history. The year 2008 saw the most workplace discrimination complaints, but EEOC officials do not see in the decrease any sign of relief. Instead, the agency points to the bigger picture, noting that the late 1990s, for example, didn't average 80,000 such complaints annually. According to the EEOC's fiscal year date, which ended September 30, 2009, three types of discrimination complaints increased over the last year. Disability complaints increased by 10 percent, from 19,453 to 21,451. National origin complaints increased 5 percent, from 10,601 to 11,134. Religious discrimination claims increased 3 percent, from 3,273 to 3,386. The number of charges alleging age-based discrimination reached the second-highest level ever - 22,778 compared to the 2008 record high of 24,582.

New Jersey Court Allows Business-to-Business Sex Harassment Suit
A business owner who claims a customer stopped buying from her after she refused to have sex with him can sue his company for sexual harassment under the Law Against Discrimination, an appeals court has ruled. The decision may be the first ruling to address whether a sexual harassment claim can be brought under a section of the law that prohibits discriminatory refusal to do business. Sexual harassment suits are typically brought under the employment discrimination provision, and some independent contractors have tried to shoehorn their claims into that section with mixed success. However, the plaintiff's attorney instead opted to sue under a section of the law that makes it illegal to "refuse to buy from, sell to, lease from or to, license, contract with, or trade with, provide goods, services or information to, or otherwise do business with any other person" on the basis of gender or other law-protected categories. The plaintiff in the case owns a tire seller in New Jersey. She claims she began doing business with a national equipment rental company in 1998. She alleges that in 2005, the company's branch manager began pressuring her for a sexual relationship and, when she refused, stopped buying her tires until she agreed to have lunch with him. After that, she claims, he continued to make advances periodically and withheld business when she declined them. He became more insistent in 2007, groping and kissing her against her will, and responded to her rejection by delaying payments to her company and then ceasing doing business with it altogether.

Suit Alleges Pennsylvania Hospital Workers Shortchanged On Pay
A Washington County woman filed a lawsuit against the West Penn Allegheny Health System, alleging the hospital network wrongly deducts pay for lunchtime when employees frequently work through lunches. The nurse's lawsuit is similar to a federal lawsuit filed last year by hospital employees accusing UPMC and West Penn of automatically docking employees a half-hour for meals, regardless of whether they took breaks and not paying for work performed before and after scheduled shifts. The lawsuit is seeking class action status and demands back pay and damages.

Vanguard Settles Race Discrimination Suit
The Vanguard Group will pay $300,000 to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a black job applicant. The EEOC said Vanguard "violated federal law when it refused to hire an African American applicant because of her race." According to the lawsuit, the woman was the only African American applicant for a financial planning manager position. She was well qualified for the position based on her 14 years of experience and MBA in finance, the EEOC said, adding that a company official told her during the lengthy application process that she was "obviously qualified for the position." The company later claimed it did not select her because she was "unqualified," in part because she did not have a certified financial planner certification. The EEOC said that race discrimination was the real reason Vanguard did not hire her, because it hired a less qualified white applicant who also lacked a certified financial planner certification and who, unlike the plaintiff, did not have work experience in financial planning. The settlement included $300,000 for the woman and a two-year consent decree prohibiting the company from engaging in discrimination or retaliation. The suit is the second in two years Vanguard has settled with the EEOC. In 2008, the company agreed to pay $500,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a man who claimed his nine-year career at Vanguard was going well until he was transferred to a new department in 2002. After complaining that he was being treated less favorably and discriminated against based on his race, the EEOC said, he began to experience acts of retaliation, including unfavorable changes in his work conditions and assignments, from the managers he accused of race discrimination. He was then fired a year after his transfer.

Outback Steakhouse to Pay $19 Million to Settle Gender Bias Suit
A Colorado federal judge has approved a $19 million settlement of a gender discrimination suit alleging the Outback Steakhouse restaurant chain refused to promote female employees to management positions. The EEOC filed the class action suit on behalf of several women nearly four years ago. The consent degree must be posted in all its restaurants and displayed on its in-house computer system. Further, the restaurant chain must train management staff, directors and human resources personnel on the settlement's terms and conditions and tell them they could be fired for breaching the agreement. Outback also has agreed to provide letters of reference for four class members.

Westmoreland Jail Subject of 17 Federal Lawsuits in Past Five Years
Westmoreland County's jail has been sued in federal court in the past five years more than any other county lockup in the region. Since 2004, the jail has been sued 17 times, court records show. By comparison, the Allegheny County jail has been sued three times in that period. The legal bill has cost Westmoreland taxpayers more than $500,000 to defend jail officials from civil rights lawsuits involving the death of an inmate, the near death of another, allegations of guards beating inmates and guards sexually harassing a female corrections officer. The latest litigation field against the jail is a civil rights lawsuit brought by a guard who alleges she was threatened with dismissal unless she has sex with a supervisor. She refused and claims she was harassed. She says in her suit that the jail is managed as a "good old boys club" where male guards solicit sex from female officers. Another suit was filed after an inmate died from acute heroin withdrawal, which was untreated while he was imprisoned even though other inmates tried to notify guards that he was dying. Another former inmate sued the jail in 2009, alleging that guards removed his insulin pump, bringing him close to death.

Court Rejects Pittsburgh Law Protecting Janitors
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a Pittsburgh ordinance designed to protect janitors from losing their jobs in downtown office buildings violates Home Rule law. Pittsburgh City Council enacted the ordinance in 2004 to govern building complexes with more than 100,000 square feet of floor space. If the owner switches security, janitorial, maintenance, stationary engineering or window-washing contractors, the new firm has to hire the old firm's workers. If there are too many workers, some can be let go in order of seniority, and any can be fired for caused, otherwise, they can't be fired or laid off for 180 days. The ordinance was passed unanimously in reaction to the 2003 dismissal of nine cleaners at the Centre City Tower Downtown shortly after the Service Employees International Union negotiated a janitors' contract with building owners downtown. However, building managers challenged the law, claiming it violated their right to contract. Two courts found that state law prohibited municipalities from placing requirements on businesses, and that trumped home rule powers. SEIU joined the case on behalf of 1,000 janitorial workers, and asked the Supreme Court for review. The court found that home rule law prohibits Pittsburgh from regulating businesses "by determining their 'duties, responsibilities or requirements.' By requiring employers to retain certain employees for approximately half a year, the ordinance exemplifies the very essence of the invasive regulations that Home Rule was designed to prevent and, indeed, strictly prohibits."

Court Nixes Sex Harassment Claims for Suggestive Talk
A federal appeals court panel has issued an opinion that the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the case says virtually eliminates sexual harassment claims in the federal courts for Georgia, Alabama and Florida. The panel ruled that two former male Home Depot employees do not have a sexual harassment claim against the company despite evidence that a male manager made comments suggesting he was sexually attracted to them and touched them in arguably inappropriate ways. The same panel issued a similar ruling recently, which suggests that at least one of their colleagues may have expressed concerns about the earlier opinion. The case involves allegations about the behavior of a regional human resources manager for Home Depot. The plaintiffs in the case, two store managers, allege that the human resources manager began making inappropriate sexual overtures to them within a month of being transferred to their region in 2005. The two also claim that they were fired as retaliation in response to their whistelblowing. The panel agreed that the plaintiffs' claims of retaliation should survive to be decided by a jury, but they divided over the sexual harassment claims. They found that the plaintiffs' complaints were of the conduct that reasonable people have come to expect they will be protected from in the workplace.

Ex-Associated Alleges Harassment and Phony Reviews in $50 Million Suit
A former associate plans to file a wide-ranging $50 million lawsuit against his former law firm, accusing the firm of denying her a promotion to partner because she is a lesbian and of doing nothing to stop higher-ups from harassing her. The former associate plans to file the lawsuit in Manhattan. She previously filed a less detailed complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the complaint, she claims that a litigation partner "knowingly made unwelcome sexual advances and sexual comments" to her, both alone and in the presence of others. The partner allegedly told her that it was the biggest regret of her life that she had not slept with the associate when she had a chance, and discussed various sexual acts with the associate. She also alleges that the partner encouraged her to wear "women's clothes," because the chair of the firm's litigation department believed the associate's preference for men's shirts could "make clients uncomfortable." The complaint also names a litigation partner who the associate alleges asked her to write a negative review of an attorney that the firm was "trying to get rid of." She refused to write the review, and she claims she was harassed as a result of her refusal. In addition to $50 million, she is seeking to be reinstated as a partner.

Court Revives Claim in Same-Sex Harassment Case
Two male former Home Depot employees should have a trial on their claim that they were fired for complaining about alleged sexual harassment by a male supervisor, a divided panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. At the same time, a 2-1 majority affirmed summary judgment on the claim of hostile work environment because the plaintiffs had failed to show conduct that, when viewed objectively, was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms of their employment. Both plaintiffs were Home Depot store managers in Alabama and Florida. They claim their regional human resources manager sexually harassed them for nine months beginning in 2005. The plaintiffs say the multiple weekly phone calls from the manager started out as business-related, but soon became entirely personal. In one example, the manager allegedly asked if one of the plaintiffs wore "boxers or briefs or nothing," comments on their appearance, and asked if one of them would meet him for drinks when he was in town. The plaintiffs also say he massaged their necks and shoulders at corporate meetings, playing with their hair and hugged them in front of the store managers and human resources personnel. Both plaintiffs say they complained to various supervisors, who in turn unsuccessfully attempted to get the manager to stop the alleged harassment, including by filing former complaints on their behalf. The problem stopped when a supervisor reported the manager through a hotline. Less than a month after, the company fired the plaintiffs, allegedly for theft and other loss-prevention violations. Both sued Home Depot alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of federal civil rights law. The court granted summary judgment to Home Depot, concluding that the conduct the plaintiffs complained about was not severe enough to cause a hostile work environment. In the alternative, the court said Home Depot exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any sexual harassment and that both plaintiffs unreasonably failed to take advantage of corrective measures or to avoid harm by the manager. The plaintiffs appealed and the court reversed in part and remanded. The panel determined that although the plaintiffs may have subjectively interpreted some of the manager's actions and comments as sexually offensive, those comments and actions would not be offensive to a reasonable person. However, the court did find that the plaintiffs' claim that they were fired for complaining about the behavior had sufficient evidence of a causal connection and that a jury should resolve the issue of retaliation.

Former Surveillance Director Sues Tropicana Over Firing
Before the chairperson of the Casino Control Commission oversaw the Tropicana's hiring of a colleague from the Division of Gaming Enforcement, she oversaw the firing of the director of surveillance, which created the opening for the colleague. The former director of surveillance, who held the position since 2001, has now filed a civil lawsuit against the chairperson, Tropicana, the Casino Control Commission and assorted other individual executives at Tropicana. The lawsuit alleges wrongful discharge, defamation, breach of contract and punishment for reporting wrongdoing by the company. The lawsuit seeks a jury trial on 24 counts alleging various violations of law and the rights of the former surveillance director and his wife. He claims he informed Tropicana's counsel that he needed to report to an independent audit committee. Tropicana at the time did not have one, which was in violation of state gaming law. He also says that he told the same things to a Division of Gaming Enforcement investigator. After his request, he claims work was made difficult for him; he was first suspended and then fired for allegedly changing the Tropicana surveillance software system without prior approval from the state.

Labor Board Decision Favors Police Union Over Scranton
The Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board has upheld the Scranton Fraternal Order of Police's position that a pair of Scranton police officers were entitled to representation during questioning by city officials. The board maintains that a hearing examiner erred in failing to find that the city of Scranton committed an unfair labor practice when two patrolwomen were being questioned about remarks made by their chief, who was later disciplined for calling the pair "overtime whores." The chief's comments earned him a one-week suspension. After the remarks, the officers sought union presence at a meeting with the director of Public Safety and a human resources director, who were investigating the incident. Their request was denied. The city argued the union lacked grounds to assert a violation of Weingarten Rights - rights employees have to union representation at investigation interviews - because there was no possibility of discipline during questioning. The board noted, however, that "what may start out as a non-investigatory interview without the intent of imposing discipline, may in fact turn into an investigation of the employee being questioned."

AT&T Hit with Two Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Seeking $1 Billion
Two employment class actions were recently filed against two AT&T subsidiaries. The actions seek a combined $1 billion in damages and back pay for roughly 5,000 current and former AT&T workers who were allegedly improperly classified by the company as exempt from overtime pay in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs are "first level" managers within AT&T, but they allege that they're managers in name only; they don't have managerial duties or authority. Many perform clerical tasks and relay information between the company managers and technicians. Years earlier, another one of AT&T's subsidiaries had classified first level managers as nonexempt employees, which qualified them for overtime. The company's decision to make them exempt reflects the pressure that major companies have felt in recent years to cut their payroll costs.

Court Rules ADA Discrimination Claim is Dischargeable in Bankruptcy
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in a case of first impression that an Americans with Disabilities Act discimrination claim against a company in bankruptcy should be treated like a dischargeable bankruptcy claim. The court affirmed an earlier dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff, who claimed she suffered from lupus, an inflammatory connective tissue disease, during most of her 24 years as a U.S. Airways employee, filed an employment discrimination claim in 2002. She claimed she was fired that year following a four-day absence for illness because she didn't obtain a doctor's certification requested by a supervisor. After U.S. Airways filed for bankruptcy protection in 2002, her case became part of the company's bankruptcy case. According to the most recent court action, the plaintiff failed to respond to U.S. Airways' objection to certain bankruptcy claims because she believed a notice sent to her meant that the company's insurance would cover her claim. The bankruptcy court sustained U.S. Airway' objections and confirmed the company's reorganization plan in 2003. The judge found that her claim is within the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction because both money damages and job reinstatement are remedies for wrongful termination. Allowing the plaintiff to limit her remedy to job reinstatement would give her a preference over other creditors that had monetary damages claims or that agreed to accept money in lieu of equitable claims.

Laundry Workers Living Wage Suit Settled for $6.5 Million
A uniform company has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit claiming it failed to pay its laundry workers a living wage. Ohio-based Cintas agreed to pay $3.3 million in back wages and interest to more than 500 workers and another $3.2 million in penalties and attorney fees. Cintas was accused of violating a Los Angeles living wage ordinance while working on city contracts from 2000 to 2004. Cintas was told to pay $2.4 million to settle a similar lawsuit last year.

Lawsuit Alleges Job Duties Jeopardize Health
A Northumberland County court administrator who has taken on additional duties in the past two years that added significantly to her salary cites harassment by court employees and disciplinary issues with a former employee for causing her health problems and threatening the life of her unborn child last year. Others disagreed with giving her the added jobs, citing the limited abilities of one person to do all of the required work. One of her appointments caused bitterness among many in the courthouse. In her lawsuit, she also alleges that a judge said he would fire her if he could and that she received harassment from long-serving secretaries to other judges. She also suffered due to issues stemming from the firing of a deputy court administrator.

County Challenges Warden's Workers' Compensation Claim
Luzerne County is contesting a workers' compensation claim that a deputy warden was injured on the job. The warden has been on medical leave since August and can remain on paid leave through early next year because of unused sick and vacation time that accumulated. County officials have not disclosed his medical condition due to personnel policy. The county has asked the warden to get an independent medical review. Under state law, workers injured on the job can file workers' compensation claims to get benefits from private insurers. Injured workers can get compensation for medical expenses, and they can get wage-loss compensation until they are healthy enough to go back to work. Recently, the county commissioner has said that he wants to eliminate the warden's job because it is "not necessary." In a lawsuit filed in 2006, the warden claimed the same commissioner violated terms of a confidentiality agreement from 2000 by disclosing that the warden and the county settled a workers' compensation case for $70,000. The settlement was for injuries, including a skull fracture, suffered in a 1998 prison fight while he was a corrections officer.  Terms of the settlement included his resignation, but he returned to the prison in 2004 when he was appointed as deputy warden.

UPS Overtime Suit Settles for $12.8 Million
A federal judge has advanced a mediated settlement for delivery drivers who claimed they were denied benefits and overtime by UPS Supply Chain Solutions because they were misclassified as independent contractors. The judge preliminarily approved the $12.8 million settlement in the class action involving about 660 potential class members. The plaintiffs and UPS jointly filed the motion to approve the settlement, of which at least 83 percent will go to members of two proposed classes representing workers in California and nationwide. The plaintiffs will ask for up to $1.7 million in attorney fees and up to $325,000 in litigation costs. UPS has changed the way it uses independent contractors based on some of the allegations raised in the case.

Officer Slams Activist's Drunk Allegation
A corrections officer is suing the state Department of Corrections and two prisoner rights groups after he was accused in an online interview of showing up drunk for duty at the department's medium-security facility. He accuses the department and the groups of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy. In the interview, an investigator for one of the groups alleged several correctional officers had been "arriving to work drunk," and identified the officer by name. The other group posted the interview on its Web site. The Department of Corrections later posted the same interview on DOCNET, an internal, electronic message board accessed by the department's approximately 15,000 employees. The officer claimed the publication of the "blatantly false and inflammatory statements" placed him in a false light, causing "great harm to his reputation and standing in both the community and his place of employment." He is seeking unspecified damages. The president's of the officer's union released a statement defending him against the intoxication allegation.

Nurse Files Harassment Suit Against Hospital
A former nurse claims she was fired from her job at Lehigh Valley Hospitai after she complained of sexual harassment, according to a federal lawsuit. She claims that she was subjected to groping of her chest and buttocks, inappropriate comments and nicknames during the 18 months she worked as a trauma nurse from June 2007 to until she was let go in December 2008. She said that she had "significant physical and emotional symptoms" and suffered from "acute anxiety and started to dread coming into work." She was fired, she claims, after telling a supervisor about the alleged harassment. She filed the lawsuit after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission granted her the right to sue earlier this year. The hospital claims she was fired for excessive lateness.

Employee Can Sue Railroad Over West Nile Virus
A conductor for Union Pacific Railroad can sue her employer for failing to protect her from the West Nile Virus she contracted while working in Wyoming in August 2003, a divided Nebraska appeals court ruled. In a 2-1 vote, the court reversed summary judgment granted to Union Pacific, finding evidence that the railroad may have breached its duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The panel said a jury must decide whether the injury was foreseeable given conditions at the rail yard where the plaintiff worked. The appeals court also said a claim brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act could be adjudicated in Nebraska state court as well as in federal court. The plaintiff worked a late shift in August 2003 during which she was required to perform a roll-by inspection of a train as part of her job as a conductor. After she got off the train for the roll-by, she encountered swarms of mosquitoes that bit her nearly 25 times, according to the opinion. She said she was wearing long pants, a sweater and insect repellent. Near the junction where the inspection took place was a pond that "always had water in it," she said. Her last day of work was August 4, 2003, as she had developed headaches, diarrhea, vomiting and nausea as a result of the mosquito bites. She was diagnosed with West Nile Virus and admitted to a hospital, and then rehabilitation facility for four days. She sued Union Pacific under FELA, alleging her permanent injuries and disability were caused by the railroad's negligence.

Prison Guard Claims Discrimination
A Pennsylvania state prison guard has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming he was discriminated against after coworkers accused him of being homosexual. The lawsuit alleges gender discrimination and sexual harassment. He claims his coworkers sexually harassed him based on their perception of his sexual preference. He says coworkers openly referred to him as a homosexual. They allegedly slammed security doors on him and locked him out of his computer. A male corrections office reportedly started a rumor indicating he had obtained a protection-from-abuse order against the plaintiff. That rumor fueled speculation that he was in a same-sex relationship.

Supreme Court May Hear 'Cat's Paw' Case
Employment lawyers are hoping the U.S. Supreme Court will resolve a conflict in the federal circuits over the so-called cat's paw theory. That says an employer is liable for discrimination when a final decision-maker is influenced by a lower-level employee with discriminatory motives to take an adverse action against another worker. The Supreme Court asked the solicitor general for the government's views on the case of Staub v. Proctor Hospital, which raises the cat's paw theory. The plaintiff, a member of the Army Reserve, alleges that he was fired from his hospital technician job because of the influence of a supervisor who was anti-military. He claims that the nonbiased, ultimate decision-maker was influenced by the supervisor. A jury awarded him $57,640, but an appeals court reversed the verdict. The courts remain split on the concept of holding an employer liable for unlawful discrimination by someone other than the primary decision-maker.

New Jersey Supreme Court to Weigh Employee's Use of Private Company Records in Bias Suit
The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by a former employee whose $10.6 million sex discrimination judgment was reversed because she shared confidential company records with her lawyer. The issue is whether an employee's acquiring of company information in the normal course of her job, and communicating it to her attorney in her discrimination case, is protected activity for which retaliation is actionable. So far, a trial judge has said yes, and an appeals court has said no.

Doctor Wins $3.1 Million in Discrimination Suit Against Hospital
Standing up for other female doctors at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute cost a doctor her job, a federal jury found. The jury awarded her $3.1 million in damages and pay arising from her discrimination lawsuit. The Pittsburgh doctor worked for the hospital from 1992 until 2007. She started questioning how her colleagues were being treated in 2006. She specifically complained the hospital was passing them over to give promotions and prestigious positions to less-experienced male doctors. The hospital only made a superficial examination of her complaints, she claimed. The hospital then let the administrator she was complaining about decide her fate. He passed her over for medical direction positions at the hospital and declined to renew or renegotiate her contract in 2007. The jury awarded her $200,000 in compensatory damages, $1.6 million in back pay, $827,000 in front pay and $500,000 in punitive damages.

Insurer Questions Woman's Depression Claim After Spotting Her Party Pics on Facebook
A Canadian woman on sick leave for depression said she would fight an insurance company's decision to cut her benefits after her agent found photos on Facebook of her vacationing, at a bar and at a party. She said she was diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick leave benefits until payments dried up this fall. When she called her insurance company to find out why, she says she was told the Facebook photos showed she was able to work and served as evidence that she was no longer depressed.

Pittsburgh Attorney to Press Discrimination Suit Against Law Firm
A Pittsburgh attorney filed a notice that she will appeal a federal judge's dismissal of the sexual discrimination lawsuit she filed against her law firm. She sued the firm in 2006, claiming the firm paid her less for performing the same work as her male counterparts and excluded her and other female employees from the office Christmas party and other functions because of sexually explicit entertainment. Earlier this year, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that she is not protected by anti-discrimination laws because, as a shareholder at the firm, she is an employer rather than an employee.

Air Marshal Claims Assault by Flight Attendant
A federal air marshal who says he was seriously injured when a flight attendant deliberately smashed a beverage cart into him is suing Delta Air Lines and the crew member, a "Jane Doe" co-defendant in the suit, who allegedly preceded the attack with less forceful rammings and warnings that he and a fellow air marshal should "stay out of my way." According to his complaint, he had to be helped off the plane and underwent surgery to repair his knee following the incident. He has since been unable to return to duty and it now working at a desk for a much lower salary.

Law Librarian Properly Fired for 'Disruptive' Email
A California appeals court has refused to overturn summary judgment in favor of a public law library that fired its reference librarian after he circulated a scathing email critical of management. The court rejected his argument that his email was protected speech and that his termination violated the California Constitution's free-speech clause. "When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline," the court explained.

Four Harrah's Workers File Sexual Harassment Suits
Four workers at Harrah's popular nightclub The Pool have filed suit, claiming they were plied with liquor and sexually harassed by a supervisor who once was honored by the company as an exemplary leader. The complaints alleged that the bar's supervisor and director of entertainment at the casino created a working environment that allowed harassment. Several casino officials and human resources workers also are accused of allowing the supervisor to continue his unwanted overtures. The complaint includes allegations he had sex with two of the women after giving them so much alcohol that they blacked out.

Scientists Get $6.2 Million in Age Discrimination Suit
A federal jury has awarded more than $6.2 million in an age discrimination suit brought by two scientists who said they were fired from their jobs at a Chester County chemical manufacturing firm when the company targeted only older workers in layoffs in 2005. The jury concluded that the company's age discrimination was "willful" - a finding that leads to an automatic doubling of each plaintiff's back pay award. The jury also awarded hefty compensatory damages - $2 million to one plaintiff and $1.5 million to the other - for the emotional damage they suffered as a result of the discrimination. The plaintiffs argued that the company manipulated its budget figures to justify layoffs in which every terminated worker was 55 or older.

Restaurant Chain to Pay $1 Million for Not Hiring Male Servers
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Lawry's Restaurant will pay $1 million to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that the chain refused to hire men for food server jobs. Lawry's operates restaurants in California, Las Vegas, Chicago and Dallas. The EEOC became involved in 2003, when an applicant was denied a server job. He was told that he was not qualified to be a server because he could not wear the "unique and historic" uniform worn by the servers, all of whom were women at that time. The restaurant chain also agreed to maintain a hiring rate of 37 to 40 percent men for server positions.

Casino Dealer Sues Over Secondhand Smoke
A Las Vegas casino is facing a class action lawsuit accusing it of failing to protect its floor workers from secondhand smoke. The plaintiff is a dealer who alleges the casino has neglected to take active steps to designate certain areas of the gaming sections as smoke-free. Her lawsuit seeks class action status and a court order requiring the casino to take "reasonable measures" to protect its workers from secondhand smoke. Her suit also alleges that the management forbids dealers from asking customers to blow smoke away from the table or to move their ashtrays. Dealers who tell customers that secondhand smoke bothers them also risk losing their jobs, the plaintiff said.

Ruby Tuesday to Pay $255,000 to Settle Sexual Harassment Suit
Ruby Tuesday Inc. will pay $255,000 to five former female employees who say male supervisors at the chain's Stroudsburg restaurant sexually harassed them. The settlement ends an August 2008 federal sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in U.S. District Court in Scranton that alleged more than a dozen female employees, including teenagers, were sexually harassed by the restaurant's general manager. The harassment included making crude sexual propositions to women, frequently making sexually explicit and graphic remarks to them about their appearance, and making lewd comments in their presence about other women.

Store Must Pay $200K for Failure to Accommodate Worker
A California appeals court has upheld a $200,000 jury verdict in favor of a grocery clerk who sued the company because she urinated and menstruated on herself when her supervisor failed to accommodate her disability. The court rejected the store's argument that its failure to accommodate was "trivial" because it was only one incident in the context of a much longer period of successful accommodation. The court cited the plaintiff's background and severe reaction to the incident when reaching its conclusion concerning an employer's duty under the Fair Employment and Housing Act to reasonably accommodate disabled workers. The clerk had worked at the store for years without issue until a medical procedure left her with constant thirst. The store agreed to accommodate her frequent bathroom breaks by arranging relief workers for her. The worked until 2005, when a manager told her that she was too busy to relieve her. After pleading with the manager, she could no longer control herself. She sued for post-traumatic stress disorder, claiming the incident caused her severe embarrassment. She sued and was awarded $200,000 in past lost wages, future medical expenses and past emotional distress.

Sham Divorces? Not for Retirement Plan Administrator to Decide
A judge in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act case ruled that retirement plan administrators are in a bad spot when confronted with beneficiaries whom they suspect of gaming the system to access retirement payments. The case involved a group of Continental Airlines senior pilots who allegedly obtained "sham divorces" to receive early payment of benefits from their retirement plan. But the judge dismissed the airline plaintiffs' claim, claiming that nothing in ERISA allows a plan administrator to question or thwart such suspected actions by plan beneficiaries. According to the administrator, pilots became concerned about the health of their retirement plan and engaged in a scheme to obtain their money through the exception to the anti-alienation provision of ERISA for divorce. The pilots all obtained divorces from various states with domestic relations orders that assigned 100 percent of their retirement benefits under the plan to their spouses. After the payments, many of the pilots continued to cohabitate with their former spouses, some remarried soon after obtaining their payout, and all essentially conducted themselves as if the divorce had never happened.

City Not Dismissed from Wrongful Death Suit
A federal judge denied for a second time Easton's request to dismiss the $20 million lawsuit filed on behalf of the widow of a slain police officer, all but assuring that the case is headed for trial. The judge filed a terse court order denying Easton's request and the requests of Easton's former mayor, former chief of staff and another retired officer to be dismissed from the case. The officer died as a result of another officer's gun going off while he cleaned it in police headquarters.

Dirty Jokes on Sex Harassment Plaintiff's Computer Ruled Fair Game
A plaintiff in a hostile work environment case who claims that her boss' sexual innuendo was offensive and humiliating cannot block the jury from hearing about the dirty jokes found on her own workplace computer, a federal judge has ruled. In such cases, the judge found, the plaintiff's own sense of humor - in her emails with coworkers and friends - may be relevant to the jury's inquiries about whether she would be offended by her boss' attempt at humor. Since a sexual harassment plaintiff must satisfy both an objective and a subjective test when aiming to show a hostile work environment, the defense lawyer must be given the right to explore the plaintiff's own workplace speech habits in an effort to undermine her claim that she was offended.

Pennsylvania Manufacturer Accused of Racial Bias
An employee of a Richland Township manufacturer says he was the victim of racial discrimination in the workplace and is suing the company and the United Mine Workers of America. He claims he is the only black employee of the company, and as such, he was put upon by the company and the union, given work below his seniority level and subjected to use racial epithets. He is seeking $300,000. His suit claims he was required to do jobs that whites were not required to do. He also says he was told to work in the paint shop because another employee could not take the smell of xylene. He eventually had to go to the emergency room for overexposure to the chemical.

Bad Police Policies Aren't Relevant to Lawsuit, City Claims
In a $20 million federal lawsuit over an Easton police officer's shooting death, city attorneys have not pushed back against claims that the police department hadn't been run well. Instead, they argued that those claims are irrelevant to the case. "People make mistakes, people break rules, people do stupid things," one of the city's attorney argued, "but that cannot serve as a basis for claims" that Easton gave inadequate gun safety training to its officers, including the one who fatally shot his fellow officer inside police headquarters in 2005. The attorney for the officer's widow countered that Easton officials had created a "catastrophe about to happen" by directing officers to clean their guns in a room the size of two bathroom stalls and by not having written policies about handling guns inside headquarters."

Nanny's Lawsuit Not Child's Play
A 71-year-old nanny has settled her lawsuit against a wealthy California couple who allegedly made her work 80 hours a week without meal breaks while paying her around $3 an hour. The couple, however, appear to have had just as many problems with their lawyers in the case. Their somewhat recent lawyers withdrew from the case around the time apparently faked evidence surfaced. The evidence was a document that put limits on the nanny's job responsibilities and schedule, including specific rest periods. It was produced eight months after the defense first responded to discovery and "neatly supported defendants' version of the facts" and "expressly contradicted the material allegations," said the nanny's lawyers. The couple argued that the document was found by another employee, but the nanny's legal team claimed the signature was faked. The lawyers tried to withdraw from the case and were only allowed when they argued that they wanted to withdraw "based on the client's conduct."

Door Opens to Health Claims Tied to Agent Orange
Under rules the Department of Veterans Affairs plans to propose, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease and hairy-cell leukemia to the growing list of illnesses presumed to have been caused by Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used widely in Vietnam. The proposal will make it substantially easier for thousands of veterans to claim that those ailments were the direct result of their service in Vietnam, thereby smoothing the way for them to receive monthly disability checks and health care services from the department. The new policy will apply to some 2.1 million veterans who set foot in Vietnam during the war, including those who came after the military stopped using Agent Orange in 1970. It will not apply to sailors on deep-water ships, though the department plans to study the effects of Agent Orange on the Navy.

Delaware Law Firm Hit with Sexual Harassment Suit
A recently filed sexual harassment suit against a Wilmington, Delaware law firm is garnering attention not only because it's chock-full of salacious details, but also because both the plaintiff and the alleged harasser are female lawyers. In the suit, a Philadelphia attorney claims that during the 18 months she spent as an associate with the firm, she was subjected to a "hostile environment" due to the sexually charged conversations initiated by her direct supervisor. She claims that when she complained about her supervisor's conduct, the firm at first did nothing to stop it and instead allowed her supervisor to retaliate against her. Later, she was denied her end-of-year bonus without explanation. Less than a week later, she was promised that the firm was taking her allegations seriously and asked her to take some time off. When her supervisor was fired, they invited her back. When she requested a 30-day leave, the firm said that if she wanted to be hired back, she would need to reapply with other candidates.

Former Mayor Says Accidental Discharges of Police Weapons 'Happen'
The former Mayor of Easton could not recall whether he knew an officer had accidentally discharged his weapon inside police headquarters when he temporarily put him in charge of the department, according to court records. He also testified that he would have been comfortable with the appointment had he known about the incident because "it happens." New details about the inner workings of the Easton Police Department have surfaced in the city's renewed requests to dismiss a $20 million federal lawsuit. Easton has asked a judge to dismiss the suit filed by the widow of a police officer, arguing that his death in 2005 was a tragic workplace accident, not a violation of his constitutional rights. His widow has argued since 2007 that the police department's lack of written policies and procedures, and a lax attitude toward discipline resulted in his accidental shooting death inside police headquarters. Her response to the city's requests paints a picture of a department devoid of discipline and run by the police union and retired officials.

Congressional Democrats Try to Zap Supreme Court's Age Bias Ruling
Democrats in Congress are trying to counter another Supreme Court decision on employment discrimination, this time taking aim at a ruling that makes it harder for older workers to prove age bias. The measure introduced would effectively reverse the Supreme Court's decision from earlier this year that said workers must show age was the decisive factor in a demotion of layoff. Previously, older workers had to show that age was just one factor in the employment decision. Critics of the ruling by the court's conservative majority say it means older workers now face a higher burden of proving their claim than those alleging race, sex, national origin or religious discrimination.

Judge Dismisses Dueling Suits Between Firm and Ex-Partner Over Sexual Harassment
A nearly two-year-long public brawl between a law firm and a former partner it fired for sexual harassment could be quieting down now that a judge has dismissed both parties' lawsuits. The judge found that the firm was unable to prove how the partner had damaged the firm, and that the partner made "unavailing" and "unpersuasive" arguments for defamation, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits stemmed from a messy public parting between the firm and its partner. He was fired in 2007 after a holiday party where the firms claims he made sexual advances toward at least seven female employees. When an article about the partner's new firm made it appear as if they had been scooped, they released a press release about why he had been fired. A similar case in 2002 yielded a settlement that was reported as $5 to $10 million.

Easton Again Asks Judge to Dismiss Wrongful Death Suit
With a November trial date looming in a $20 million federal lawsuit filed in the death of a slain Easton police officer, city officials have again asked a judge to dismiss the suit. This time they're relying on testimony from city police officers and an admission from the officer who shot the other that he failed to follow the repeated training he received. An attorney for the officer's widow, who filed the suit, claims that the depositions of Easton police officers simply reinforce his claims that the city routinely covered up firearms violations instead of meting out punishment. The lawsuit argues that the city's lack of policies, procedures and training led to the officer's accidental shooting death inside police headquarters in 2005. Another officer was cleaning his gun when it discharged and killed his fellow officer. Easton has argued that the city requires its officers to undergo firearms testing two to four times a year.

Appeals Court Dismisses Dan Rather's Suit Against CBS
A Manhattan appeals panel has thrown out the remaining claims in veteran newsman Dan Rather's $70 million suit against his former employer, CBS. Rather alleged that CBS caved to political pressure by forcing him out of his anchor chair and denying him the opportunity to cover important news stories after he narrated a controversial 2004 broadcast about President George W. Bush's Vietnam-era military service - a broadcast Rather said he believed was true. Under his contract, the network had no obligation to "use Rather's services or broadcast any program" as long as it kept paying him his annual $6 million salary, a deal the network upheld until it fired Rather in 2006. The panel also found "insufficiently supported" Rather's claim that the network had damaged his business prospects by "warehousing" him for 15 months. "Since, according to Rather's own allegations, an immediate result of the broadcast was criticism that he was biased against Bush, it would be speculative to conclude that any action taken by CBS would have alone substantially affected his market value at the time."

Plight of Harrisburg Workers Might Prompt New Worker Protections
The situation surrounding Turbine Airfoil Design in Harrisburg has prompted a state legislator to propose new protections for workers. Employees of the Harrisburg company are owed back pay and also face steep medical bills that were supposed to be covered by their employee health plan. For many, their biggest problem stems from the fact that the company stopped making full payments to its health insurer last year. The company and their insurer tried to work out the situation, but the insurer canceled the coverage earlier this year, retroactive until 2008. Some employees, now laid off, have thousands of dollars in medical bills and are being hounded by collectors. A Philadelphia legislator plans to introduce a bill that would increase penalties against companies that withhold wages or "divert" health insurance contributions. The company said it was not their desire to deny employees wages or fail to pay for the health benefits. They said they were forced to do so by the recession and inability to obtain the revolving credit the company had long relied on. As of January, the company employed about 75 people who have since all been laid off.

Judge Preliminarily Approves Class Action Overtime Suit
A federal judge has given preliminary approval for a class action lawsuit to proceed against Erie Indemnity Co. over allegations that it failed to pay overtime to claims adjusters in a Pittsburgh-area office. The lead plaintiff charges that since 2006, claims adjusters have been denied overtime pay because management altered electronic pay records or knowingly failed to record or pay hours that adjusters worked outside the office. He first filed the lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2007. He recently convinced a judge to certify the case as a class action lawsuit. The judge ordered that the parties submit a proposed notice that will be advertised and mailed to the affected employees. Those employees may then seek to join the suit and share in any proceeds. The plaintiff wants the company to pay overtime and interest, damages and penalties on the wages it owes to those who he claims were shorted on overtime pay.

Truck Drivers' Conspiracy and Defamation Claims Get Green Light
Four truck drivers for a California waste management company will be able to pursue claims that the sex discrimination, defamation and emotional distress they allegedly suffered on the job violated state and federal law. At the same time, another judge granted judgment on the pleadings to the company on the plaintiffs' claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the state constitution and federal civil rights laws. The plaintiffs, who are black, worked for Cal Waste as truck drivers. They complained to the company about alleged racial harassment from co-workers and the fact that managerial employees "condoned, supported and knowingly failed to remedy" the situation. One of the plaintiffs also alleged that his immediate supervisor made unwanted sexual advances toward him and that the advances were witnessed by another of the plaintiffs. According to the lawsuit, Cal Waste retaliated against three of the plaintiffs and terminated one of them because of their complaints. They sued Cal Waste and the managers allegedly responsible for the hostile work environment at the company.

Court Ruling Broadens Protections of FMLA
In a ruling that broadens the scope of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the statute's retaliation provisions may be invoked by workers who claim they were fired for merely asking permission to take a leave and cannot be limited to those who actually exercised the right. "It would be patently absurd if an employer who wished to punish an employee for taking FMLA leave could avoid liability simply by firing the employee before the leave begins," wrote one of the judges. Attorneys for Nationwide argued that the same court had already decided the issue in a 2004 ruling, which held that the first requirement for a retaliation claim is that the worker actually took an FMLA leave. They argued that the regulations explaining the FMLA retaliation provisions say the law protects only "employees who have used FMLA leave." As a result, an employee cannot establish a retaliation claim unless she actually commenced a leave.

EECO Sees Mental Health Stereotypes at Work
The federal government is suing a North Carolina employer for what it calls a pervasive problem in the workplace: discrimination against employees with mental illness. In the suit, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission contends that the Smith International Truck Center relied upon "myths, fears and stereotypes about mental impairments" when it unlawfully terminated an employee who took leave for a mental health issue. According to the suit, the employee took one week off to obtain medical treatment and get his dosage adjusted for medicine he took for what the complaint calls a mental impairment. The man then returned to work with no restrictions, but was fired shortly thereafter. The agency asserts that his employer fired him because of his perceived disability, which is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. "The employer just assumed, acting on stereotypes, that if he's getting treatment for any kind of mental impairment, that he must not be able to work, and that's the problem," claims the EEOC.

Councilman Seeks Permanent Domestic Violence Leave Law
Philadelphia Councilman Bill Greenlee got some grumbles from the business community when he first introduced his Domestic Violence Leave bill, which requires employers to allow four to eight weeks of unpaid leave for domestic violence victims who can document their situation. The law contained a one-year sunset provision to measure its impact. A year later, no evidence at all of hardships on businesses due the law has shown up, which prompted Greenlee to introduce legislation to make the law permanent. The law is meant to allow victims of domestic abuse to attend to "court proceedings, consultations with the police or a lawyer and medical emergency shelter assistance." Businesses with less than 50 employees have to allow up to four weeks unpaid leave. Those with more than 50 must allow eight weeks. Documented evidence of the abuse includes police and hospital records. Similar laws exist in three other cities.

Knouse Foods Accused of Discriminating Against Mexican Women
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed suit against a Pennsylvania apple processing plant, charging it created a hostile atmosphere against female Mexican employees. The commission filed suit against Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., saying female Mexican employees were systematically subjected to sexual and racial harassment at the company's facility. The suit says the employees were subjected to sexual propositions, racial slurs and other conduct by male employees and one male supervisor since at least 2006.

New Jersey High Court Asked to Limit Discrimination Claims for Post-Discharge Conduct
The New Jersey Supreme Court has been asked to put a limit on the ability of a fired employee to sue for discrimination based on the employer's post-discharge conduct. The justices heard an employer's appeal from a ruling last year that allowed such a suit to go forward against a food distributor, despite the fact that the alleged post-discharge misconduct was ultimately resolved in the plaintiffs' favor. In the suit, filed under the Law Against Discrimination, a former employee claimed he was harassed and eventually fired because he complained that his brother, the company's vice president, was engaged in extramarital affairs with the wives of two other employees. Both he and his wife were let go in late 2003, but they did not sue until 2005 after the Law Against Discrimination's two-year statute of limitations had expired. He then submitted an affidavit setting forth a pattern of retaliation by the defendants that continued after he was fired. Among the actions alleged were interference with his wife's application for unemployment benefits and the denial of a medical benefits claim under the company's policy.

Courthouse Mold Plaintiffs Press for Response to Lawsuit
Attorneys for employees who claim mold at the downtown Fort Lauderdale courthouse has made them sick have given the county five days to respond to their lawsuit or risk a default judgment. Six lawsuits have been filed so far against the county and other defendants claiming that contractors failed to cure the aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina and Wilma and broken pipes that caused flooding. More lawsuits are expected.

Kentucky Jury Finds for Defense in Asbestos Suit
A jury in Kentucky has returned a verdict in favor of Ford Motor Co. following a trial in which a former worker said he developed cancer from exposure to asbestos in insulation and gaskets. The plaintiff intends to appeal the verdict and accused the trial judge of wrongly allowing Ford to introduce hearsay evidence. The plaintiff worked as a millwright from 1977 through 1981. His work took him to various plants owned by car companies, including Ford. His duties included tearing out insulated pipes and equipment and installing conveyor systems. After working for various elevator companies, he retired in 2001 because of his mesothelioma, a fatal form of lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure. Although he claimed not to have been exposed to asbestos while working as an elevator mechanic, records show he made a claim for such exposure against his last employer.

Employer May be Liable for Contractor Age Bias
An employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties, including independent contractors authorized by the employer to make hiring decisions on its behalf, a federal appeals court has ruled. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, an employer may not "fail or refuse to hire any individual because of such individual's age." The case arose when a man applied to be a "shower," someone who takes prospective buyers through aparments. He claims that the independent contractor retained by the apartment building told him he was "too old."

Pizza Shop Forced to Pay for Weight-Loss Surgery
An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340-pound employee's weight-loss surgery to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work - raising concern among businesses bracing for more such claims. The decision could make employers think twice before hiring workers with health conditions that might cost their companies thousands of dollars down the road. The court ruled that the pizza shop must pay for lap-band surgery for a cook at the shop who weighs 340 pounds. He was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door in 2007, and doctors said he needed surgery to ease his severe pain. Doctors also told him that the operation would do him no good unless he first had surgery to reduce his weight, which rose to 280 pounds after the accident. His employers agreed to pay for the back surgery, but argued they were not obligated to pay for a weight-loss operation that could cost $20,000 to $25,000 because he already was obese before he was hurt. The court said the surgery and disability payments were covered because his weight and the accident had combined to create a single injury.

Jailer Fired in Sex Case Fights Back
A former Snyder County Jail deputy warden who was fired earlier this year for sexual harassment has filed an age and gender discrimination lawsuit against the county with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The deputy warden's employment was terminated for violating the county's sexual harassment policy by showing a sexually explicit e-mail to an employee. He admitted showing the photos, but said he was not granted an impartial investigation to defend himself. Following his firing, he informed the county that others in the jail had violated the policy but didn't lose their jobs. He added that his superior also saw the same email that day but took no action.

3rd Circuit Revives Gay Man's Gender Stereotyping Suit
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a self-described "effeminate" gay man should have an opportunity to pursue his claim that the harassment and retaliation he experienced on the job stemmed from gender stereotyping in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Although the federal civil rights law does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the status has been interpreted as prohibiting gender stereotyping as a form of sex discrimination. In this case, while finding that the "line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination 'because of sex' can be difficult to draw," the appeals court panel said the record was ambiguous on the question of where that line falls. He claims that he was "outed" by one of his coworkers, which led to several others causing serious problems for him by calling him "fag," leaving a pink feather tiara on his desk, loudly stating their objections to his lifestyle and writing anti-gay graffiti on the bathroom walls. He complained to management, who took no actions other than to repaint the walls. When he told his coworkers that he was considering suing the company, he was laid off.

Wage and Hour Complaints Head for a Company Near You
Wage and hour problems are about to get uglier for corporate America. Employers, already battling a rash of private lawsuits, are bracing for yet more scrutiny over their pay practices in light of a new report that shows wage and hour violations are running rampant in the workplace. The 72-page report is just one blow to employers as the U.S. Department of Labor has recently announced that it is hiring 250 additional investigators to snare wage and hour scofflaws. The study, which surveyed more than 4,000 workers in low-wage industries, found that "employment and labor laws are regularly and systematically violated." It estimated that in a given week, approximately 1.1 million workers have at least one pay-based violation and that front-line workers in low-wage industries lose more than $56.4 million per week as a result of employment and labor law violations.

Ex-Employee's Suit Tests if Labor Firm's Arbitration Agreements Ironclad
The question in a suit filed by a former employee is whether the law can compel arbitration based on agreements it drafted that it says bind all employees suing the firm. The firm claims it fired its office administrator for "performance-related issues" and has moved to stay the suit and compel arbitration. But her lawyer cross-moved for a declaration that there is no enforceable arbitration agreement that applies to her claims, brought under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, the Law Against Discrimination. She claims she was fired in retaliation for going to the office's managing partner to allege she had discovered financial irregularities and abuse of expense account reimbursement procedures by employees, including a female secretary she suspected had a personal relationship with the partner. She also alleges a hostile environment in which female employees were "ridiculed, sexually harassed and humiliated by male co-employees and male supervisors."

Workers' Medical Bills Go Unpaid
Employees of Turbine Airfoil Designs Inc. in Harrisburg claim that health insurance contributions were deducted from their paychecks even though they didn't actually have insurance. When the company stopped paying for its group plan, it failed to tell its employees, who continued to receive medical care. Now some employees face five months' worth of medical bills. Some have bills totaling $10,000 or more. TAD claims it missed the payments because of the recession and because it has been in desperate financial straits since late last year.

Mandatory Retirement Ruled Wrongly Imposed
Lawyers chafing under their firms' mandatory retirement policies might consider the type of in-house post a Connecticut federal judge recently deemed outside the scope of executive jobs that can legally include a retirement age. The judge ruled that a pharmaceutical company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act by forcing their chief patent counsel and vice president for intellectual property to retire at age 65. The statute allows companies to institute mandatory retirement policies starting at age 65 for employees who are so-called bona fide executives or high policymaking employees for at least two years before retirement. To qualify, the employee must be among a handful of executives who manage a significant number of other workers or a large volume of the company's business.

Union Fights Refinery Over Layoffs
The president of the steelworkers union that represents 425 employees at a Sunoco plant said the company is pushing for additional layoffs and refusing to negotiate severance for 48 workers from the refinery's damaged ethylene unit. The ethylene complex was damaged earlier this year in an explosion and fire. The company decided that it would be closed due to insufficient demand for product. In addition to trying to arrange severance for 38 operators and 10 mechanics from the unit who will be laid off starting in February. Sunoco just issued job cancellation notices for 12 other employees in two crude units and the transferring/shipping unit.

Court Revives Gay Man's Title VII Suit
Although federal workplace discrimination laws don't cover sexual discrimination, a federal appeals court has ruled that an effeminate gay man must be allowed to pursue a Title VII claim alleging that he was targeted for harassment because he failed to conform to "gender stereotypes." The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that in such cases, it is sometimes difficult to discern whether the harassment a worker suffered "was because of his homosexuality, his effeminancy or both." But a lower court order erred, the appellate panel found, when it declared that the plaintiff's claim clearly fell on one side of the line, and that his sex discrimination claim was nothing more than "an artfully pleaded claim of sexual orientation discrimination." Instead, the unanimous three-judge panel said, a jury should have decided the case because the evidence was "ambiguous on this dispositive question."

EEOC Delivers Lawsuit Over UPS Medical Leave Policy
The world's delivery giant, United Parcel Service, has been receiving some unwanted packages these days from the federal government: lawsuits. In what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is calling a "major class lawsuit," UPS was sued in federal court in Chicago for allegedly denying sufficient medical leave to disabled employees. The suit claims UPS sets arbitrary deadlines for returning to work after medical treatment - in one case firing an employee who would have exceeded its 12-month leave policy by mere weeks - in violation of federal law. Just two months ago, UPS settled a religious discrimination lawsuit with the EEOC in Tennessee, in which the company was accused of requiring a 19-year-old driver to work past sundown on his Sabbath, which violated his beliefs as a member of the United Church of God. UPS denied that it engaged in discrimination, but agreed to pay $23,500 in damages to the employee. Earlier this year, a federal jury in New Jersey ordered UPS to pay $10,000 to a man who was denied a job because his Rastafarian religious beliefs forbid him from shaving his beard.

Countrywide Settles Class Action Over Retirement Losses
A federal judge in Los Angeles has preliminarily approved a $55 million settlement between Countrywide Financial Corp. and its former employees, who were seeking compensation for losses to their retirement plans. The suit, filed in 2007, alleged that the officers and directors of Countrywide, which was one of the nation's largest mortgage lenders, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by failing in their fiduciary duty to monitor employee retirement funds that were held in company stock. The settlement covers class members who participated in Countrywide's retirement plan from 2006 to 2008. The settlement includes an incentive award to the named plaintiff of at least $10,000, plus attorney fees totaling up to 27.5 percent of the settlement fund.

Ex-Judge Who Lost $54 Million Pants Case Takes Wrongful Termination Suit to D.C. Circuit
The former administrative law judge of Washington, D.C. who gained notoriety for his unsuccessful $54 million suit against a dry cleaners that misplaced a pair of pants, has turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He wants the federal appeals court in Washington to overturn the dismissal of a wrongful termination suit he filed in 2008 against the city, among other defendants, seeking reinstatement to his post as an administrative law judge. He has been a member of the D.C. Bar since 1978. He said in his suit that the failure to reappoint him to a 10-year term of service as an administrative law judge violated constitutional and statutory rights. He said he has a right to complain about alleged supervisory misconduct, and that he should have a right to file suit without the fear of retaliation.

Ruling in Favor of Law Firm in Pregnancy Discrimination Case Analyzes Rare Points of Law
More than a year after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accused a law firm of discriminating against a pregnant employee, a federal judge has granted summary judgment in the firm's favor. At issue in the court's report and recomendation were several points of law not unusually present in a pregnancy discrimination case, including an analysis of a non-traditional formulation of how a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and a discussion of the "cat's paw" theory of imputed discriminatory intent. At issue was whether a legal assistant was the victim of a discriminatory firing. She worked as an account manager in the firm's attorney network department, where her job involved handling files related to a network of co-counsel in other states who specialize in consumer debt collections. Employees were supposed to handle 100 to 150 of those files per day. Instead, she handled far fewer files - in some months, several thousand fliers fewer - than some of her co-workers. The firm said she was found sleeping at her desk. After being moved twice to less-demanding jobs, a supervisor caught her viewing a personal e-mail in violation of the firm's policy against personal e-mails at work. She was then fired when she was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. She sued her employee in 2008, alleging race and sex discrimination. Her complaint alleged that she had worked for the firm for a year without incident, but that after she announced her pregnancy, she was "harassed" and "disciplined," and her supervisor began treating her "differently and more harshly."

High Court Ruling on Age Discrimination Decides Juror Rights Case
In a sign of just how far a recent Supreme Court decision on age discrimination could reach into labor law, a federal judge has cited the opinion as she ruled against a woman who had sued Washington, D.C. under the city's juror protection law. The woman, a former guidance counselor, filed suit against the city in 2007, alleging she was transferred out of her job because the principal at the school was angry that she had spent four months serving on a jury. In a ruling against her, the judge cited the Supreme Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, in which the justices ruled that plaintiffs filing age discrimination suits were required to prove that they would not have been fired "but for" their age. The judge found that the language in the D.C. Jury Systems Improvement Act, which the guidance counselor sued under, closely mirrored that of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the law which was the subject of the Supreme Court's case. Therefore, she ruled that the standard should be interpreted as the same, requiring the guidance counselor to prove that she would not have been transferred but for her jury presence.

Former Partners Accuse Clifford Chance of Unfair Dismissal
Clifford Chance is facing an employment dispute in Germany as two former salaried partners accuse the firm of unfair dismissal related to its recent partnership restructuring. The former partners left the firm as part of its partnership restructuring, which was launched earlier this year. The duo have filed claims for unfair dismissal in the local labor courts claiming that, as non-equity partners, they were employees rather than shareholders, which would grant them additional protection under local law. Clifford Chance plans to contest the claims.

Lawsuit Blaming Judge's Death On Courthouse Mold Dismissed
A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the children of a late judge against the U.S. government, claiming their father's fatal lung ailment was due to moldy conditions at the courthouse he worked in. The judge died in 2006 at age 66 from a severe respiratory infection. His children blamed the courthouse's condition on poor maintenance by the General Services Administration, which operates all federal courthouses. The courthouse was plagued for years with water leaks and mold that worsened after a spate of hurricanes hit South Florida in 2004 and 2005; it has since been closed. A federal judge granted the government's motion to dismiss, ruling he had no jurisdiction because the lawsuit seeking damages from the federal government is barred by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. The law provides a maximum $1,000 compensation for the death of an employee resulting from an on-the-job injury.

In Photo ID Case, Security Concerns Win Out Over Religious Beliefs
In a case that pitted religious beliefs about photographs against the ramped up security concerned following the September 11 attacks, a federal judge has ruled that an oil refinery had no duty to accommodate a worker who refused on religious grounds to pose for a photo ID. In her opinion, the judge found that a 2002 federal law specifically mandated that all workers in port facilities carry photo ID, and that Sunoco had no power to waive that requirement. The employee argued that Sunoco could have accommodated him by using biometric identification, such as fingerprints or iris scan, which he had offered to pay in part for. But Sunoco argued that the requirements of the Maritime Transportation Safety Act, along with the Coast Guard regulations that were passed in its wake, simply don't allow for any exceptions. The employee is a Black Israelite and a member of the Church of the True and Living God who believes that the Second Commandment prohibits him from posing for pictures or photographs and from carrying the same upon his person.

Court Rejects Drug Saleswoman's Challenge to Defense Verdict
A California appeals court has ruled against a pharmaceutical sales agent who claimed she was forced to resign from her job because of harassment and because of her employer discriminatorily applied its "nursing mothers" policy. The court ruled that she quit before she had exhausted all the appeals processes available at the company. The court also found that even though she "actually and subjectively" suffered emotional injury from the harassment, a reasonable person viewing the situation objectively would not have suffered that injury. Her job was to sell diabetes medications, and she objected when her employer started to include syringes with "starter kits" the company gave to doctors because it was illegal. Although the company stopped the starter kit program, she claims her supervisors began to retaliate against her for complaining. She claims she began to have additional problems at work once she had a baby and started breast-feeding at work. After quitting, she sued, alleging gender discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination and constructive discharge under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Settlement OK'd in GE Retirement Class Action
A federal judge has approved a settlement worth just over $40 million between General Electric and retirees over the company's decision to put up GE stock as an investment and matching contribution in its retirement program. Retirees contended the investment of company stock was not economically prudent and that their retirement benefits suffered as a result. Notices of the class action were sent to more than 318,000 potential members. A settlement was reached after discussions mediated by a retired state court judge. About $10 million of the settlement will go to payments, of up to $5,000 each, for retirees who claimed they were damaged financially by GE's investments. GE also agreed to make another $30 million in "structural changes" to the retirement plan. The judge upheld as "reasonable" the awarding of $10 million in attorney fees for plaintiffs lawyers, money the judge determined should not come out of the $40 million settlement. About three-quarters of the members of the class are current GE retirees and 25 percent are former beneficiaries of the pension plan.

Turbaned Subway Owners Allege Discrimination
Three men have filed a federal suit against the Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority alleging they have been discriminated against because they wear turbans. The three men own two Subway restaurants at the airport and allege airport officials have tried to drive the men out of business. The men say airport officials "registered surprise, discomfort and displeasure at the turbans worn by the plaintiffs." The men are Sikhs and wear the turbans as part of a religious observance. The suit says the men believed airport officials did not want them wearing turbans at work to avoid making passengers and visitors nervous. The suit also alleges the airport has notified the men their lease will not be renewed when it expires in November and they will be evicted from the airport. Even though the airport is planning renovations, the suit says airport officials have an obligation under the lease to offer them space to relocate. Meanwhile, the airport claims that the men knew that the lease ended in November. The renovations require the closure of one of the restaurants, though Subway is considering a roughly three-year extension for the second eatery.

Surprising Cancers Seen in Young 9/11 Officers
Researchers say a small number of young law enforcement officers who participated in the World Trade Center rescue and cleanup operation have developed an immune system cancer. The numbers are tiny, and experts don't know whether there is any link between the illnesses and toxins released during the disaster. But doctors who coordinated the study said people who worked at the site should continue to have their health monitored. The researchers looked at 28,252 emergency responders who spent time amid ground zero dust and found eight cases of multiple myeloma. While those findings are no surprise, four of the people who fell ill were under age 45, and multiple myeloma is thought to be more rare among people of that age.

Linklaters Faces Dispute Over Layoffs
Linklaters has confirmed that it is in discussions with a former employee relating to the redundancy program it carried out earlier this year. Referring to reports, the law firm is facing legal action from at least one former staff member. Linklaters also confirmed that it is in discussions with one ex-employee as a result of a redundancy. Linklaters restructured heavily earlier this year through a global program dubbed Linklaters New World, which saw the firm laying off approximately 400 employees. Out of these, 200 were lawyers and 200 were business support staff.

Court Favors Law Firm Over Alleged Retaliation and Discrimination
A federal appeals court affirmed a jury's verdict in favor of law firm McGuireWoods and its partner in a suit filed by a legal secretary alleging retaliation and defamation. The suit, filed in 2006, alleged the firm and its partner retaliated against her when she sought time off under the Family Medical Leave Act. In 2007, a jury sided with the firm, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the evidence "supports the jury's finding that McGuireWoods did not interfere with her right to seek leave under the FMLA, nor was she terminated for having sought protection under the FMLA." The legal secretary was fired in 2005 while she was seeking leave to care for her ailing mother.

No Overtime Pay for NutriSystem's Phone Sales Force
A federal judge has rejected the claims of a group of sales associates in its Pennsylvania call center who said they were cheated out of overtime pay. Because the workers are paid commissions for every order they take, the judge concluded that the company's pay scheme qualifies for the "retail commission" exception in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs lawyers argued that since the workers are paid a "flat rate" for every order, their pay is comparable to the "piecework" wages paid to some factory workers. The judge disagreed, saying the NutriSystem sales associates compared more directly to many other workers paid by commission because their wages depend on the whims of customers.

California Supreme Court Narrows Workplace Privacy
The California Supreme Court ruled that employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the workplace, but that right has limits. Those limits don't prevent employers from conducting some hidden surveillance in an employee's office for "legitimate business concerns." "An employer may have sound reasons for monitoring the workplace," said one justice, "and an intrusion upon the employee's reasonable privacy expectations may not be egregious or actionable under the particular circumstances." The ruling expands the right to monitor employees in the workplace, but not in a surprising way. The case arose in 2002 when an office manager and administrative assistant discovered hidden video equipment in the office they shared. The director had installed the equipment in an unsuccessful attempt to catch someone who had been viewing pornography on a computer. The Superior Court ruled that mere placement of the surveillance equipment in the office without their knowledge invaded their privacy. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that even though they could understand the workers' dismay, the placement of the hidden camera wasn't egregious and the employer had a valid reason for what he did.

Pennsylvania Makeup Artist Sues Resort
A Fayette County cosmetologist claims in a federal civil rights lawsuit she was fired over an extreme case of body odor. In addition, the woman alleges the resort dismissed her because of her age and disabilities that include an anxiety disorder that gives rise to panic attacks. According to the lawsuit, she worked for the resort from 1996 until she was let go in 2007. She provided spa services that included haircuts, nails, makeup, skin care, body waxing and mud wraps. During her employment, she was diagnosed with anxiety disorder, endometriosis and ovarian cysts. The anxiety disorder caused her to sweat profusely, resulting in excessive body odor. Panic attacks she suffered after undergoing a hysterectomy related to her other disabilities "caused a rise" in her body odor. With the consent of her supervisors, she took lunchtime showers and changed clothes during the day to address the odor. The panic attacks also caused her to miss an average two weeks' work annually, with the attacks sometimes requiring hospitalization. On one occasion, she alleges a manager berated her for missing work because of an attack, even though she provided a doctor's excuse upon her return. She is also claiming age discrimination, saying she was let go while younger staff kept theirs. She is seeking back pay and reinstatement of her job, compensatory and punitive damages. In lieu of reinstatement, she wants forward pay and lost benefits, including lost pension.

Chinese Workers Say Illness Real, Not Hysteria
More than 1,200 employees at a textile mill in China have been stricken by convulsions, breathing difficulties, vomiting and temporary paralysis. Doctors have determined that workers are having a reaction to unknown substances, which workers claim came from a factory across the street that produces aniline, a highly toxic chemical used in the manufacture of polyurethane, rubber, herbicides and dyes. As soon as the plant started production, local hospitals began receiving stricken workers from the acrylic yarn factory 100 yards downwind from the plant's exhaust stacks. On some days, doctors were overwhelmed and patients were put two to a bed. Chinese health officials, however, contend that the episode is a communal outbreak of psychogenic illness, also called mass hysteria. The blurry vision, muscle spasms and pounding headaches, according to a government report, were simply psychological reactions to a feared chemical exposure. During a four-day visit, a team of public health experts talked to doctors, looked at blood tests and advised bedridden workers to "get a hold of their emotions," according to patients and their families. Though fear of poisoning can lead people to describe symptoms that exist mainly in their minds, outbreaks of psychogenic illnesses on the scale of what has been reported are rare.

Court Starts Clock on Asbestos Plaintiffs' Claims
A Pennsylvania federal judge has given plaintiffs 60 days to produce medical records by qualified experts in support of their claims or face dismissal, withdrawing an earlier order that allowed an indefinite tolling of the limitations period. The cases had been dismissed without prejudice in 2002 to address what the judge called a "mass filing of asymptomatic asbestos cases." The recent order returned the cases to the active docket in an effort to enforce the provisions of a 2007 order that required plaintiffs to submit a diagnosing report in support of their claims. The 2002 order addressed what the court said were findings based on mass screenings by asymptomatic plaintiffs that depleted funds, "some already stretched to the limit, which would otherwise be available for compensation to deserving plaintiffs." Defense lawyers claim the new order could theoretically result in an increased number of nonmalignant cases being reintroduced, but plaintiffs' counsel cannot rely on mass screening reports or the reports of suspect doctors previously identified by the court.

Latest Lawsuit by Pants Judge Goes in the Hamper
A federal judge has thrown out a wrongful termination lawsuit by a former D.C. judge who was fired after filing a $54 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. He claimed that his employer used the fact that he was being vilified in the media to cut him out of his $100,000-a-year job as an administrative judge. However, the judge in his case found that he had alleged "a host of facts that only serve to totally undercut his claims." The judge had claimed in his $54 million suit that the owners of a dry cleaning business lost a pair of his favorite pants and that their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign was deceptive.

Class Certification Denied for Fed-Ex Employees
In a wage-and-hour class action complaint, FedEx employees alleged that the company paid them only for their scheduled work time, not for the full time period between when they punched in and out on a manual clock. They also alleged that FedEx did not pay them for breaks, as required by state law. A panel of judges concluded that individual facts, rather than class claims, predominated. "Adjudication of plaintiffs'' claims on a class basis would be swamped by individual factual inquiries into the activities of each employee during the gap period and during breaks."

Smaller Employers Exempted from Suits
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that businesses with fewer than four employees may engage in sex discrimination without legal repercussions because of the way the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act is written. In the case of a woman who claimed she was forced to quit her job because of pervasive sexual harassment, the court ruled that because an employer is defined in the act as a business having four or more employees the woman had no right to sue for sexual discrimination. She took a job at an insurance company in 2001. She claimed that the owner began making inappropriate comments and asking her to have sex with him and started rubbing, touching and hugging her. When she insisted he stop, he made her working conditions so intolerable that she quit in 2002. She filed a complaint with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, which rejected it because the company had only three employees. She then filed a suit in Snyder County Court, which said she couldn't proceed on the sexual discrimination claim. Though the state Superior Court sided with her, the Supreme Court found that the Legislator has lowered the number of employees in the definition three times between 1955 and 1963 to protect smaller businesses from the threat of lawsuits.

Wal-Mart Gets OK for $17.5 Million Settlement for Race Bias
A federal judge in Arkansas has given final approval for Wal-Mart's plan to pay $17.5 million to settle a race discrimination lawsuit brought by black applicants rejected for truck driver positions. The lawsuit began in 2004, when an applicant filed suit after he unsuccessfully applied for a job with Wal-Mart as an over-the-road truck driver. He said Wal-Mart discriminates against blacks when hiring for driving positions in violation of federal civil rights laws. Those statutes protect a number of rights, including the right to make and enforce contracts. Courts have found that the laws prohibit race discrimination in hiring and employment. His class action suit was consolidated with another case in 2005. The amended complaint alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact and asked the court to award back pay, front pay, injunctive relief and punitive damages. A judge certified a class of about 4,500 plaintiffs nationwide and designated two subclasses: all black applicants for OTR truck driving positions at Wal-Mart who had been rejected since 2001, and all blacks who had been "deterred or thwarted" from applying for those positions because of their race. After participating in settlement and mediation sessions, the plaintiffs and Wal-Mart decided to settle the claims.

Settlement Proposal Rejected in Wal-Mart Wage-and-Hour Class Action
A Massachusetts state court judge struck down efforts to settle a wage-and-hour class action against Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs' attorney has been accused by other lawyers in the case of going behind their backs to try to strike a collusive deal with Wal-Mart's lawyers. He denies the accusation and asserted that he had negotiated an excellent settlement proposal for the class that was worth $20 to $40 million. The class action is one of the few wage-and-hour cases out of more than 60 filed against Wal-Mart that hasn't settled. Wal-Mart has been accused of violating numerous wage-and-hour laws by denying mandated meal breaks and forcing employees to work off the clock. Other plaintiffs attorneys in the case have said that the ruling sent a clear message to Wal-Mart that class actions cannot be settled behind the backs of class representatives. They also accused Wal-Mart of "counsel shopping" that has tainted the entire process.

Standard Established for Sexual Harassment Within Professional Relationships
The California Supreme Court, in a case of first impression, has ruled that sexual harassment under a state civil code statute governing conduct in business relationships should be defined using the same "pervasive" or "severe" standard established under case law for sexual harassment in the workplace. The case involves a code which prohibits sexual harassment in certain business relationships outside the workplace, such as those involving attorneys and their clients or doctors and their patients. The statute limits liability to conduct that is "pervasive" or "severe" but does not define those terms. Those same terms, however, have been defined under case law in lawsuits involving sexual harassment in the workplace. California's highest court found that the definition of "pervasive" or "severe" under the civil code is the same as that under case law involving workplace sexual harassment cases. The originating case was brought by a woman who alleges that a trustee managing her son's trust made several sexual advances towards her.

Lawsuit Against Hospitals Alleges Workers Weren't Full Paid
An attorney suing three Western Pennsylvania hospitals said that 100,000 current and former employees will receive letters asking whether they want to join a class action lawsuit over hours it says they should have been paid but weren't. The notice will be sent to hourly employees who worked at the hospitals during the past three years. The lawsuits accuse the hospitals of automatically docking employees a half-hour for meals, regardless of whether they took breaks; not paying for work performed before and after scheduled shifts; and not paying for required training.

Deputy Warden Fired in Sex Case
The deputy warden of the Snyder County Jail has been fired for allegedly violating the county's sexual harassment policy in an incident earlier this year. After the incident, he was placed on an unpaid suspension. The county's sexual harassment policy allows anyone to come forward with a claim that they are either aware of sexual harassment or they themselves have been harassed.

More Computers, Many More Injuries
Computer users are afflicted with more than back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome. People are also winding up in emergency rooms with cuts, bruises, sprains and fractures caused by computers and computer accessories. More than 90 percent of the injuries occur at home. Researchers estimate that in 2006 there were 9,279 emergency room visits for computer-related injuries, up from 1,267 in 1994. The increase is more than double the increase in home computer ownership in those years. Over the 13-year study period, more than 78,000 people ages 1 month to 89 years were treated in emergency rooms for acute computer-related injuries. More than half of the injuries happened when people were moving their computers, and the monitor was the part most commonly involved. Injuries peaked in 2003, when sales of LCD monitors first exceeded those of monitors with cathode ray tubes. Children under 5 had the highest overall injury rate as well as the greatest injury rare increase of any group.

California High Court Gives Workplace Violation Suits Route Around Class Certification
Employees wanting to sue their bosses for workplace violations were given an alternative route that gets around the arduous task of gaining class certification under unfair competition laws. The California Supreme Court ruled in two companion cases that employees need not meet class requirements if they seek civil penalties for themselves and others under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. That was significant because the court also held that individuals trying to bring unfair competition suits on behalf of others must qualify them as class actions. Employers have been able to fend off UCL suits through rulings denying class certification. Observers say that the rulings provide a back door around the class certification process. Employees can now pursue claims for penalties for violations of any labor code provision without having to go through the class certification procedures.

$200 Million Wage-and-Hour Suit Filed Against Northwestern Mutual
Three financial representatives who worked for Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co. have filed a $200 million lawsuit against the company for failing to pay them overtime wages under California and federal law. Their claims were filed on behalf of more than 100 representatives in California who worked for Northwestern Mutual during the past four years. They requested certification of a class of employees and former employees whose unpaid damages amount to $100 million under state law and $100 million under federal law. The plaintiffs said that they were forced to work more than 40 hours per week but were paid less than California's minimum wage, which was $8 per hour in 2008. They also allege that the company consistently misclassified its sales and financial representatives as "independent contractors," rather than employees, to avoid paying them overtime under federal and state laws.

Worker Sues After Losing Job Over Alleged Tainted Meat
A man who claims he tipped off the USDA about a shipment of bad meat that had been sold to a discount grocer filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employer. He claims his company retaliated against him for reporting the rotten shipment of 2,814 pounds of meat in 2005. The plaintiff claims he saw a bill of sale for the spoiled meat and instructed an employee that the meat was not to be loaded for delivery. When he arrived back at work the next day, he found the meat had been loaded onto a truck. He removed the meat, but while he was out of the office, the meat was delivered to a local discount grocer. He then contacted the United States Department of Agriculture because he was concerned for the public's safety. He later told his supervisors about his report, and he was berated and given two options: rewrite the company's overage, shortage and damage policy, or work at his previous position as the second shift supervisor. He is seeking both lost earnings and damages.

Possible $19,500 Settlement for Former Prison Guard
The Fayette County Prison Board has recommended the county pay $19,500 to a former corrections officer to settle the guard's claim that he was not given a hearing before his dismissal. The board dismissed him from his job last year after he was accused of smuggling tobacco and Vicodin tablets into the jail. He is currently awaiting charges of possessing a controlled substance, possessing with intent to deliver and bringing contraband into a prison. He filed the grievance through the union that represents the county's prison guards shortly after his termination. According to the proposed settlement, the union alleged that the guard was "not terminated for cause" and that his dismissal "raised a constitutional due-process violation." The proposed settlement calls for the guard to be "laid off" from his job, effective April 2009. If commissioners approve the settlement, the guard stands to receive the money, which includes gross pay and unused vacation pay, sick leave and compensatory time. In exchange, the union would drop the grievance and agree not to pursue a federal civil rights lawsuit regarding his dismissal. He would also be forced to give up any claim to future reinstatement and would be barred from seeking any other employment with the county.

Milwaukee's Sick Leave Ordinance Struck Down
A Wisconsin judge has struck down Milwaukee's sick leave law, a fledgling ordinance that never really took off since voters approved it last year. A judge held that the ordinance, which would have required local businesses to provide employees with paid sick days, was unconstitutional and invalidly enacted. Milwaukee, San Francisco and Washington are the only three cities in the country to have adopted paid sick-leave laws in recent years, although no legal challenges have surfaced elsewhere. Not so in Milwaukee, where the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, a group representing businesses, challenged the bill on a number of grounds, calling it burdensome and unconstitutional. In granting summary judgment to the MMAC, the judge objected to a provision within the ordinance that would have made domestic abuse victims eligible for paid sick days for taking time off to seek shelter or pursue legal action. He held that such domestic-abuse related time off is not a public safety issue and that, because that part of the ordinance was improperly constructed, the entire measure is invalid. "The provisions regarding domestic violence and sexual assault are not rationally related to the ordinance's overall objective of protecting the public welfare, health, safety and prosperity of the city," he wrote.

Court Reverses Decision Denying Class Certification in Workers' Suit
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has traditionally been loath to reverse lower court judges who have scotched class action litigation by declining to certify a class of injured plaintiffs. But in a five-year-old racketeering case brought against a carpet and flooring manufacturer by its hourly wage employees, an 11th Circuit panel has reversed and remanded a 2008 decision by a judge that denied class certification to the employees who were plaintiffs in the case. The appellate panel's decision marks the third time that the case has been before the federal appellate court on an interlocutory appeal. The appellate panel determined that the lower court judge had erred when he rejected class status for the employees on grounds that there were not issues of law or fact that were common to the class. The appellate ruling is a victory for the employees who have claimed for years that the company, via temporary employment agencies, violated federal laws by hiring illegal aliens as a way to depress hourly wages. The company is the second-largest carpet and rug manufacturer in the U.S. and employees more than 30,000 people. The employees have sought certification of their complaint as a class action and monetary damages for all hourly workers who, by virtue of citizenship or visa, can legally work in the United States and who worked at the company between 1999 and the present.

Injuries Linked to Computers Skyrocket
According to a study in American Journal of Preventative Medicine, the number of acute computer-related injuries, including lacerations, bruises and muscle and joint strains, increase 732 percent from 1994 to 2006. Among the causes of injuries are tripping and falling over computer equipment, hitting against equipment, components falling on top of a person and lifting or moving a computer. Using data collected by the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System from emergency departments at 100 U.S. hospitals, the survey showed more than 78,000 cases of acute computer-related injuries were treated over the 13-year study period. As home computer use increases, computer-related injuries increase as well. About 93 percent of the injuries occurred at home.

Lawsuit Settlement Talks in Officer's Death Drag On
An insurance company's continued fight against covering Easton in the federal lawsuit brought by the widow of a slain officer appears to be slowing settlement talks. A second round of settlement talks in the federal lawsuit ended without a resolution to the more than two-year-old legal fight. The talks began after a judge denied Easton's request to dismiss the suit as a workers' compensation claim. The judge also denied the insurance company's argument that the insurance company is not obligated to defend or insure Easton. The company has argued that the officer's death inside police headquarters in 2005 was a workers' compensation claim. The judge had previously ruled that the city's $10 million policy with the insurance company clearly states that it covers "civil rights claims arising out of law enforcement activities."

Washington High Court Rules Strict Liability Applies to Old Asbestos Claims
Strict product liability applies to asbestos claims that arose before Washington adopted the standard for supplies in 1975, the state Supreme Court has ruled. The high court affirmed that a trial judge should not have dismissed strict liability claims against a supplier of asbestos-containing insulation. The plaintiff alleged he developed lung cancer after being exposed to asbestos fibers on his father's work clothes in 1958. He claims his father was exposed to asbestos while working as an insulator of asbestos insulation products at a Texaco refinery. The Washington Supreme Court made the liability standard part of common law when it adopted the Restatement of Torts in 1969 as applied to manufacturers and for sellers and suppliers in 1975. The Washington Court of Appeals then found that the Supreme Court required retroactive application of strict liability in the case. The high court said that while it recognized that changes in the law can create a hardship for those who have relied on past decisions, "we have chosen to favor equality of litigants over individual equities. Our decisions of law apply retroactively to all litigants not barred by procedural requirements unless we expressly limit our decision to purely prospective application." It follows that strict product liability applies to the plaintiff's claims.

Asbestos-Related Cancer Not Covered in Old Louisiana Workers' Compensation Law
Louisiana's workers' compensation law does not cover claims for a specific type of asbestos-related cancer caused by exposure prior to 1975, the state Supreme Court ruled. The judgment means a $2.8 million damages award in a tort action filed by a former pipe fitter will stand. The defendants said the plaintiff's exclusive remedy should have been through the workers' compensation system. In 2005, the East Baton Rouge Parish District Court awarded $2.8 million to a former pipe fitter and welder diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal form of lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure. The court said the defendants and six others were responsible for exposing the man to asbestos products. The defendants appealed the judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation law barred the claim. The 1952 law provides compensation for specific diseases, including asbestosis and disease resulting from contact with oxygen compounds and metal compounds. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos, which should be classified as a compound of oxygen and metal; however, the state Supreme Court has ruled that mesothelioma was not covered under the law and the plaintiff should be able to pursue damages in court in a tort action.

Formaldehyde Linked to Cancer Death
Factory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde were more likely to die of cancers of the blood and lymphatic system than workers with low-level exposures, according to a study by researchers at the National Cancer Institute. But the risk of dying of these cancers diminished over time after the exposure stopped. The research looked at some 14.000 deaths among 25,619 workers, most of them white men, who began working before 1966 at 10 plants that produced formaldehyde and formaldehyde resin. In the four ensuing decades, workers with the highest peak exposures to formaldehyde had a 37 percent greater risk of death from all blood and lymphatic cancers combined than those with lower peak exposures. That is a lower risk of death from these cancers than was found in the same group of workers 10 years ago, when their risk was 50 percent higher than that of workers with lower exposure levels. The different between the rates then and now indicates that this risk diminishes as time passes after exposure has ended.

Sick Workers May Get Compensation
People who worked at the Westinghouse Atomic Power Development Plant in East Pittsburgh from 1942 to 1944 or their survivors may be eligible for federal compensation if the workers developed one of 22 types of cancer. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has recommended that employees of the plant in those years should belong to a "special exposure" group. Members of the group can qualify for a $150,000 lump sum payment and coverage of certain medical expenses. Because even younger workers at the time would be in their 80s today, the most likely benefit will be for survivors to get the lump sum payment if their relative qualified under the program's medical criteria. The plant prepared radioactive uranium for chain reaction experiments, paving the way for the development of the first atomic bomb. The compensation plan is part of the U.S. Department of Labor's program to pay workers exposed to radiation during the Manhattan Project and other atomic weapons work during and after World War II.

When the Stork Carries a Pink Slip
It may not sound fair, but it is entirely legal to lay off a pregnant woman or a woman on maternity leave as long as the employer can make the case that she is being let go for a reason unrelated to her pregnancy. To be sure, it is illegal to dismiss someone or refuse to hire her specifically because she is pregnant, according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But few employers are foolish enough to cite pregnancy as the reason for firing or not hiring someone. Aside from such blatant discrimination, pregnant women have no special protection under federal employment law. Many lawyers now suspect that some employers are now using the law's laxity and the dismal economy to tacitly discriminate against new or expectant mothers. Many experts urge women who suspect such discrimination to seek legal counsel.

Woman Who Failed to Disclose Depression Cannot Collect Unemployment Benefits
A woman who did not disclose that she suffered from depression to the employer that fired her for excessive absenteeism cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits, or argue that her rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a New York appeals court has ruled. The court ruled that her failure to inform her employer about her mental illness constituted misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. The unemployment board had ruled that the woman had forfeited her unemployment benefits by not taking reasonable steps to protect her position even though she had been on notice for more than a year that her excessive tardiness and absenteeism were jeopardizing her job.

Defendants in Asbestos Suit Lose Bid for Autopsy of Plaintiff
In a case of first impression, a New Jersey appeals court denied a defense request for an autopsy of an asbestos-exposure plaintiff who died two days before trial. The panel affirmed a trial judge's finding that defendants Chrysler Corp. and Honeywell failed to show that examination of the dead man's lung tissue would produce significant evidence. The ruling means that the man's body, which had been stored at a funeral home, can now be laid to rest. The suit claims that the man, who died at age 67, contracted mesothelioma, a form of lung cancer, by inhaling asbestos while working in a car repair shop decades earlier. Chrysler and Honeywell learned of his death on the day the trial was scheduled to begin. Both companies immediately requested an autopsy to learn what, if any, fibers were present in his lung tissue in order to help refute causation. The judge denied the autopsy request.

Pfizer Must Pay $666,000 for FMLA Violation
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer must pay $666,000 for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act rights of an employee fired after he took time off to adopt a child. The appeals court panel rejected Pfizer's argument that it could not retaliate against the plaintiff for taking two adoption-related leaves because he never actually applied for leave under FMLA. However, employees need not even mention FMLA to benefit from its protections, the court found. The plaintiff worked in various sales and management positions at Pfizer for almost 15 years before he was fired in 2003. His performance ratings were good during that time. In 2003, he and his wife made two trips to Russia to adopt a child. According to his lawsuit, he kept Pfizer informed concerning his need for time to complete the adoption, and no one at the company told him he could not make the trips. However, he was fired less than three weeks after returning from Russia with his newly adopted daughter.

Better Brain Trauma Testing Urged for Troops
A group of doctors and scientists say the U.S. needs to devise a uniform test for traumatic brain injury to be performed on all troops who are exposed to a blast or other violent event in wartime. Traumatic brain injury, or TBI, is often referred to as the signature wound of the Iraq war. Roadside bombs, vehicle accidents and other events have left hundreds of thousands of troops with such an injury. Most are mild, and military medical officials have said an overwhelming majority heal without treatment. But other officials have said 45,000 to 90,000 troops have suffered more severe and lasting symptoms.

Stress Injuries Rising Due to Huge Combat Loads
An increasing number of soldiers are being sidelined with muscle and bone injuries caused by carrying combat loads weighing as much as 130 pounds. Research is being done to determine how many troops are affected by weight-related stress fractures, sprains and other orthopedic problems that prevent them from shipping out with their units. The numbers are likely to keep going up as more soldiers are sent to Afghanistan, where the terrain, elevation and road conditions are much more challenging than in Iraq. The wear-and-tear injuries have not affected the Army's ability to field effective combat units, but service officials want to reverse the trend by lightening the load troops carry. That means buying less heavy and more comfortable body armor, lighter weapons and ammunition, and unmanned vehicles that can carry supplies into combat zones.

Some Wounded Soldiers Punished for Injuries
Though the Army's Warrior Transition units were created for the more than 10,000 soldiers who are currently recovering from injuries, some claim that commanders of the unit hold them to the same standards as able-bodied soldiers in combat units and often assign chores as punishment for minor infractions. One unit has a discipline rate three times as high as Fort Bragg's combat units. Many injured soldiers claim that their officers are either indifferent to their medical needs or actively try to drive injured men and women from the military. Some complain they are being punished for the very injuries that land them in the unit.

OSHA Investigates Two Falls in Pocono Country Club
A Poconos country club builder is under investigation after two workplace accidents in the past nine days left two employees seriously injured. In February, a worker was injured when he fell from scaffolding at a construction site. The next week, a second worker was flown to the hospital after a similar fall. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration opened separate investigations of each incident. Fall hazards are the cause of most workplace injuries.

Wartime Brain Injuries Could Reach 360,000
The number of U.S. troops who have suffered wartime brain injuries may be as high as 360,000 and could cast more attention on such injuries among civilians, Defense Department doctors say. The estimate of the number injures, the vast majority of them suffering concussions, represents 20 percent of the roughly 1.8 million men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where blast injuries are common from roadside bombs and other explosives, the doctors said. The estimate came in a Pentagon news conference on activities planned this month to bring attention to brain injuries. The doctors said the number could be as low as 180,000, based on estimates that between 10 percent and 20 percent of troops might have received such injuries. The previous high estimate offered publicly was 320,000 in a study released a year ago by the private Rand Corp. It was based on about 1.6 million who had done tours of duty in the wars from late 2001. Though so-called traumatic brain injury can range from a mild form such as concussions to severe forms with penetrating head wounds, officials said the majority of injuries among troops are the mild form. The overwhelming majority heal without treatment, but an estimated 45,000 to 90,000 troops have suffered more severe and lasting symptoms.

Plan Implemented to Resolve Complex Suits in World Trace Center Cleanup
More than seven years after the September 11th terror attacks, plaintiffs lawyers and New York City are now following a road map a federal judge hopes will result in settlements next year in the complicated process of determining liability for respiratory damage already suffered by thousands of workers who participated in the cleanup of the World Trade Center site. A total of 225 of the most severe cases have been selected by two special masters appointed by a judge in the litigation brought by more than 9,000 plaintiffs. Of that group of 225, six cases will soon be selected for what are formally scheduled to be trials but are really a path toward settlement. Two of those sample cases will be selected by New York City, its contactors and other defendants; two more will be selected by attorneys for those who claim injury from the cleanup of toxic materials; and another two will be selected by the judge himself. Those six cases will then steam forward with full discovery. By September, they will have been joined in stages by another 24 cases, setting a total of 30 cases on track for the argument of motions beginning in January 2010 and trial readiness by May 2010.

PA Court Rejects Challenge to Statutory Limit on Asbestos Liability
A deeply divided Superior Court ruled asbestos plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge on constitutional grounds a statute limiting the liability of successor corporations in asbestos litigation. The judges agreed that Philadelphia-based Crown, Cork & Seal Co. did not have to pay any more in asbestos liabilities on behalf of Mundet Cork, a company it purchased in 1963, because Crown, Cork had already paid out millions in liabilities attached to the company. While the plaintiffs and administrators of the estates of three people who died from asbestos-related mesothelioma agreed the Crown, Cork was protected under a statute that places a cap on liabilities, they argued that the statute violated the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Equal Protection Clause and other provisions of Pennsylvania's constitution. The minority argued that denying the plaintiffs standing would treat in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs differently because the cap statute treats in-state and out-of-state companies differently, However, the majority ruled that the plaintiffs did not fall under any "zone of interest" protected by the "dormant commerce clause" and therefore didn't have standing to challenge the statute under that constitutional doctrine. Courts have invoked the dormant commerce clause to limit the power of state legislatures to enact measures that burden interstate commerce.

9/11 Lung Problems Persist for Years
Researchers tracking September 11 responders who became ill after working at the World Trade Center site found many had lung problems years later in a study the authors said proves persistent illness in people exposed to toxic dust caused by the Twin Towers' collapse. The study monitored more than 3,000 responders between 2004 and 2007. Slightly more than 24 percent of the patients had abnormal lung function. In earlier examinations, about 28 percent of the patients had similar results. Experts have struggled since the 2001 attacks to find standards to define post-September 11 illness and the time it would take to develop. New York City's medical examiner recently added to the official victims' list a man who died in October of cancer and lung disease, citing his exposure to the dust cloud that enveloped the city when the 110-story towers collapsed.

Prison Guard Union Files State Labor Complaint
The union representing more than 150 guards at Westmoreland County Prison has filed an unfair labor complaint against the county, claiming jail officials disregarded negotiated work rules when disciplining corrections officers. About a dozen union members attended a meeting of the county Prison Board to protest what they claim is unfair, retaliatory behavior by the jail's managers. The dispute began when the union filed an unfair labor complaint that claimed a guard was disciplined without being represented by a union official. The dispute in question was over a broken chair. A guard refused to cooperate in an investigation into how the chair was broken, and that resulted in a disciplinary action for insubordination.

Study: Women Who Lead Nonprofits are Paid Less than Male Counterparts
Men who head local nonprofit organizations continue to out-earn their female counterparts by about $30,000, but the long-standing gap may be narrowing slightly. On average, male executive directors are earning $113,634 per year compared with $82,723 for women, according to a survey of nonprofit organizations in southwestern Pennsylvania. Several factors may contribute to the disparity, but a key one is that men dominate the ranks among the largest nonprofits and tend to stay in those positions longer, even though women make up a majority of the top positions overall.

High Court Justices Protect Workers from Retaliation in Job Bias Investigations
A U.S. Supreme Court job bias decision protecting workers interviewed in an employer's internal investigation of discrimination is likely to lead to an increase in worker retaliation claims and greater caution by employers as to which workers should be interviewed. Rejecting employer arguments that retaliation would become an "easy charge" for certain employees, the high court unanimously held that an employee who speaks out about discrimination by answering questions in an employer's internal investigation is protected against retaliation under the nation's major job bias law. Typically, every Supreme Court decision that favors employees in this area tends to increase the number of retaliation claims.

Exposed to Solvent, Worker Faces Hurdles
When the University of Kentucky published new research suggesting that exposure to a common industrial solvent might increase the risk for Parkinson's disease, Ed Abney, a former tool-and-die worker took notice. Now sidelined by Parkinson's, Abney had spent more than two decades up to his elbows in a drum of the solvent, trichloroethylene, which he cleaned metal piping. The university study had focused on him and his co-workers who worked near the same 55-gallon drum of the chemical. It found that 27 workers either had the anxiety, tremors, rigidity or other symptoms associated with Parkinson's or had motor skills that were significantly impaired. Abney though the study was the scientific evidence he needed to claim worker's compensation benefits. However, the medical researchers would not sign the form attesting that Abney's disease was linked to his work. Individuals like Abney are caught between the conflicting imperatives of science and the law. There is a huge gap between what researchers are discovering about environmental contaminants and what they can prove about their impact on disease. The gap has ensured that only a tiny fraction of worker's compensation payments are received by those who were exposed to harmful substances at work.

Police Department and Widow Told to Settle
The federal judge who denied Easton's request to dismiss a police officer's widow's civil rights lawsuit has ordered everyone back to the settlement table. The judge signed an order last week that referred the case back to a Magistrate judge to reinstitute settlement talks. The widow is suing the City of Easton and the Easton Police Department following her husband's shooting death at the hands of a fellow officer. The other officer accidentally shot and killed her husband while he was cleaning his gun.

Former Officer Files Grievance with Council
A former city police sergeant wants the City Council to grant him the post-retirement health benefits he believes he's earned. He filed the grievance with the council after the mayor denied his benefits. The sergeant informed the mayor in June that he planned to use his accrued time off and retirement benefits, which were guaranteed to all officers hired before January 1, 1992. The sergeant was hired in 1989. However, another section of the contract stipulates that any officer hired after January 1, 1989 is not eligible for retirement benefits. The two sections are in direct conflict with each other, according to the sergeant. He claims we wasn't told until December, nearly six months after announcing his intention to use the benefits, that he was being denied his health benefits upon retirement.

Guard Receives Court Settlement in MRSA Case
A woman who claimed she contracted a staph infection which caused facial scarring while working as a prison guard at Graterford Prison in 2003 recently settled for $226,000. The former guard, who is in her 40s and worked at the prison for more than 10 years, filed the worker's compensation claim in February 2007. According to the claim, she woke in 2003 to find her face significantly swollen for no apparent reason. After consulting her primary care provider, she was referred to another doctor who cut her face to drain the swelling. This treatment, which was administered multiple times on multiple areas of her face, left her with facial scarring. The woman has had nearly 40 infections that have resulted in 40 separate outbreaks. A doctor finally diagnosed her with MRSA in 2005 and concluded that there was "no question in my mind that she acquired this bacterial strain while working at the prison."

Ex-Partner Files Suit in Benefits Dispute
A former partner has sued his firm after efforts to arbitrate a dispute over his 2002 termination broke down. He is one of 60 attorneys and 170 other employees cut by the firm in 2002 as it sought to improve its financial performance. The partner had worked for the firm since 1981 and sued the firm after the arbitrator in the dispute withdrew from the case in 2007. Neither side could agree on a replacement. The partner is seeking damages stemming from a $95,920 in back retirement benefits, as well as interest and $5,048 per month in benefits for the rest of his life. He alleges in his complaint that the firm violated his partnership agreement by terminating him and wrongfully depriving him of his right to retirement benefits. He also alleges that the firm violated his separation agreement that specified the dispute would be resolved through arbitration.

2nd Circuit Clarifies Review Standard in Awarding Disability Benefits
A change in the standard of review for denying disability benefits where the plan administrator has a conflict of interest has led a federal appeals court to award payments to a tax attorney with colon cancer. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said new guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court means a less deferential standard of review under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act where the plan administrator is conflicted because it both evaluates eligibility and pays benefits. The decision favors a long-time cancer sufferer who was denied benefits by an insurance company used by his employer. Citing the employer's actions in his case as well as its long history of "deception and abusive tactics" in denying benefit claims, the court awarded disability benefits back to 1995. The 2nd Circuit ruled that it would adhere to the Supreme Court's clarified explanation of the standard of review governing such cases, which is that a conflict of interest is to be "weighed as a factor in determining whether there was an abuse of discretion."

Veterans with PTSD Sue Federal Government for Disability Benefits
A group of military veterans filed a class action against the federal government, alleging that they were illegally denied disability benefits despite being diagnosed with severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder that should have qualified them for free care. The five soldiers, all veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, were discharged by the Army after it determined that their damaged mental health left them unfit to serve. Once released, they were assigned disability ratings well below the 50 percent figure needed to qualify for lifetime health care benefits. The complaint alleges that starting in 2002, the Army "systematically" ignored rules requiring that all servicemen diagnosed with PTSD receive an automatic 50 percent rating.

City Brings Widow's Wrongful Death Suit to Appellate Court
The city of Easton will appeal a federal judge's decision not to dismiss a civil rights lawsuit against the city for the accidental shooting death of her husband. The city argues that the case is a workers' compensation case, not a civil rights or even wrongful death suit. The widow's husband, a police officer, was accidentally shot and killed by another officer inside a small gun-cleaning room inside police headquarters. The widow, who is seeking $20 million, argues that her husband's death could have been prevented by simple safety training.

Supreme Court to Consider $500 Million Asbestos Settlement
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider reinstating a roughly $500 million settlement of asbestos-related lawsuits against the Travelers Companies Inc. The settlement would also block any new lawsuits against Travelers arising out of the insurance company's long relationship with Johns Manville Corp., once the world's largest producer of asbestos. Travelers has been named in dozens of lawsuits claiming that it tried to hide the dangerous health effects of asbestos. A Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court's approval of the settlement, saying a bankruptcy judge lacks the authority to act so broadly.

NFL Meeting Irks Wives of Ill Retirees
Wives of former NFL players with dementia were denied access to a meeting with the commissioner of the NFL about later-life care of retirees. The women were told that the meeting was for players only and that many felt the presence of women could impede the discussion. However, the wives criticized their exclusion, claiming that their husbands are unable to participate due to their dementia and that their wives are entitled to be involved in the discussions.

Ground Zero Lawsuits to Begin in 2010
After years of wrangling, lawyers for New York City and for the thousands of ground zero workers suing the city have agreed to begin trials in the spring of 2010. The lawsuits claim that workers suffered illnesses as a result of their exposure to dust at the site, and most the first cases to be heard will involve people with the most severe health claims. Nearly 10,000 firefighters, police officers, construction workers and others have sued the city and its contractors, saying they suffered respiratory and other illnesses because they were not given breathing masks during the nine-month rescue and recovery operation after the 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The defendants face a liability that could reach $1 billion or more if they are found to have been negligent.

Court Hears OSHA Case on Carcinogen Exposure
Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, hearing cases in a federal appeals court, asked why the Labor Department does not lower worker exposure to known carcinogens such as hexavalent chromium. An advocacy group is asking the government to reduce the exposure limit for the carcinogen, which is known to carry a significant risk of lung cancer. Hundreds of thousands of workers are exposed on the job to hexavalent chromium, including welders, ironworkers and aerospace painters. A lawyer for the government argued that OSHA has already cut the allowable limit by more than 90 percent, while the advocacy group wants exposure limited to only 1 percent.

City of Easton Asks Judge to Dismiss Wrongful Death Suit
The city of Easton is arguing that it is not liable for the death of a police officer and should not be included in a multimillion dollar civil rights lawsuit filed by the officer's widow. The widow sued the city after her husband was accidentally shot to death by another officer during a drug raid. However, the city claims that not only did her husband accept the risks of the job, but also that the other officer was found liable, not the city. The lawsuit seeks at least $20 million in damages.

Miners' Widows Settle West Virginia Fire Lawsuit
The widows of two men killed in a 2006 coal mine fire in West Virginia settled a wrongful death lawsuit against Massey Energy Co. The widows of the miners sued the company, its CEO and two subsidiaries. The two men died after getting lost in thick smoke from a conveyor belt fire. The lawsuit claimed the defendants knew or should have known that a series of problems at the mine, including a missing air control wall, could kill miners by allowing smoke to fill escape routes. It also claimed that the CEO was personally liable because he had strict control over activities at the mine.

Larger Payments Sought for Families of Officers Killed on the Job
Pennsylvania police unions are pushing lawmakers in Harrisburg to approve a bill that would increase payments to the families of officers in large city departments who are killed on the job. Under current law, the state continues to pay a family 100 percent of the salary of a deceased officer from a borough or township with at least three or more full-time officers. A spouse received that money for life, and children receive it until they are 18, or 23 if they go to college. But officers from the state's largest police departments all have different health benefits. For example, whereas Pittsburgh pays half of an officer's salary, Philadelphia pays 60 percent of the officer's salary. Unions support a bill that would require the state to cover the additional costs of a 100 percent salary death benefit for all family members.

OSHA Investigates Fatal Warehouse Fall
The death of a man following a fall at a farm warehouse is being investigated by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The man was a maintenance foreman at the warehouse who was injured when he fell from a platform. OSHA is investigating the incident to see whether the workplace contributed to his death or acted negligently.

Doctors' Testimony Enough to Prove Workers' Compensation Claimant Faking
A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the testimony of two doctors was enough to prove that a workers' compensation claimant was feigning symptoms that were not outwardly visible. The court upheld a previous ruling to terminate the benefits of a claimant who it determined, based on medical testimony, was exaggerating symptoms such as headache and dizziness. The case in question concerned a man who claimed he was injured at work when he was hit in the face by a box of crowbars while unloading a truck. His company then sued to terminate his benefits following the opinions of two doctors who claimed he was faking his symptoms.

OSHA Ties Mill Death to Where Man Stood
A man died at a pipe factory after he was crushed between two pipes. One pipe, which was suspended from a crane, swung toward the man, crushing him between that pipe and another. The Occupational Health and Safety Administration fined the company $26,700 for allowing the man to stand where he should never have been. OSHA also found several other violations at the factory that could endanger other workers.

Law on Asbestos May be Retroactive
The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled on a 2004 law that will result in the dismissal of more than 40,000 asbestos lawsuits in the state. The court ruled that a 2004 law requiring asbestos claimants to have specific medical evidence from a physician before pursuing a claim was retroactive. The ruling also has ramifications in Florida, Georgia, Kansas and other states that have sought to use such laws to reduce litigation related to the cancer-causing substance.

OSHA Proposed Fines Against Hampton Company
A Hampton company faces $174,000 in penalties after citations by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for alleged violations at a job site. OSHA claims the company failed to protect employees from cave-ins of trenches as deep as 22 feet. Officials said that the company "received repeated warnings and was well aware of the trenching hazards identified with the site, but chose not to correct them."

Crashes Leading Cause of Death on the Job
Workplace shootings may get all the news coverage, but more workers are killed in highway crashes than any other way. Nationally, of the 5,488 people who were killed on the job, 1,311 of then died in highway accidents. In Pennsylvania, 64 or 29 percent of the 220 people who died while on the clock were killed in highway accidents. Twice as many people were killed on the job in traffic accidents as the 32 people who were victims of homicide at work. All in all, 27 drivers of heavy trucks died in accidents in the state last year.

Workers Not Liable for Horseplay Injury
The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that a man injured when co-workers tied him up with duct tape during workplace horseplay cannot sue them for negligence because the injuries occurred within the scope of his employment. Although the workers' compensation system typically provides the means for an employee to recover for on-the-job injuries, Delaware law provides an exception when injuries co-workers caused do not arise "out of or within the course and scope of employment."

Tennessee Court Rules Against Alcoa in Asbestos Suit
The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that Alcoa Inc. can be sued in the asbestos-related death of a former worker's daughter. The Pittsburgh-based company had argued that it should not be held responsible for daughter's cancer. The daughter had originally filed suit against the company in 2003, claiming that the asbestos dust her father brought home on his clothes had caused her cancer. The father continued the lawsuit after his daughter died.

If you think you may have a Workers’ Compensation case, we can help.  Contact us today.