KMK Law Management Rights Blog

As most any litigation practitioner knows, Facebook can be GOLD.  Pictures really are worth 1,000 words. . . or more.  That million dollar picture of a plaintiff who has claimed debilitating emotional distress:  on a boat, raising a beer with friends, and posted smack in the middle of the period of time that plaintiff claims was riddled with “emotional distress.”  GOLD.  And it happens with regularity.  Facebook, as with other social media, is a medium of the moment – individuals post (and get tagged) in pictures posted during the adrenaline-infused, alcohol-fogged moments of “good times.”  And it is exactly these moments – moments easily forgotten by Plaintiffs asking a judge or jury for emotional distress damages – that are crucial to developing a clear picture of emotional distress. 

What do Rolling Stone magazine and the United States Senate have in common?  They’re both talking about the discrimination faced by individuals with non-conforming gender identity.

The amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act quietly went into effect as of October 21, 2013.  Congress passed the Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act (“Act”) in late-2011 as part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (“TAAEA”). While the TAAEA is primarily concerned with extending retraining assistance for employees displaced by foreign workers, the Act requires states to incorporate provisions into their own Unemployment Insurance laws to (1) enhance penalties for fraudulent Unemployment Insurance claimants; (2) revise the timing of "new hire" reports; and (3) impose new obligations on employers (and their agents) with respect to responding to Unemployment Insurance claim notices. 

Determining how to reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability can be difficult for employers.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kempter v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., et al. affirms common-sense law – namely, that in reasonably accommodating a disabled employee, employers are not required to convert temporary light-duty work into a full-time position, reassign a disabled employee to a position he/she is not qualified for, or which would displace another employee’s rights, or create a new position. 

In a ruling that bolsters employers’ established FMLA leave notice requirements, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and upheld a former employee’s discharge for failure to follow the call-in requirements of his employer’s attendance policy in White v. Dana Light Axle Manufacturing, LLC.  The decision is assuring to employers who have established and adhere to FMLA leave policies that require employees follow specific procedures to notify their employers of their intent to take protected FMLA leave.

As most employers are aware, the definition of what constitutes a “disability” for purposes of providing a reasonable workplace accommodation was broadened significantly with the enactment of the Americans with Disability Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). 

Employers received more good news from the U.S. Supreme Court this week with decisions in two cases that toughen standards for determining who is a supervisor and for proving retaliation. 

For employers, compliance with wage-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is more important than ever.  A top lawyer at the Department of Labor (“DOL”) stated earlier this month during a conference that the DOL has a new emphasis on investigations of potential FLSA violations. 

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant. 

Now that summer is here, many companies have brought in the annual crop of summer interns.  It is likely that at least some of these interns are unpaid, working for the privilege of gaining experience or a foot in the door that might lead to a paying position.  A Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled this week that Fox Searchlight Pictures violated federal and New York minimum wage laws by not paying production interns. What does this mean for employers?