In Weber v. Fujifilm Medical Systems USA Inc., et al., case numbers 13-4891 and 14-0206, decided on October 9, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a former executive’s employer could use “after-acquired” evidence – evidence of an employee’s misconduct during the period of employment which the employer discovers after the employee’s discharge on other grounds – to confirm the nondiscriminatory reason for his termination.
Continue Reading Employer Permitted to Use “After-Acquired” Evidence at Discrimination Trial
Termination
Undocumented Workers May Pursue Claims Under California’s FEHA, So Says The California Supreme Court
On June 26, 2014, in Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., the California Supreme Court held that undocumented immigrants who fraudulently obtained employment still may pursue retaliation and discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In its decision, the Court also found that the affirmative defenses of unclean hands and after‑acquired evidence, which typically can limit an employee’s ability to obtain relief, are not complete defenses to FEHA claims brought by undocumented workers. Under the Court’s ruling, employees who used false documentation to obtain employment not only may bring such a lawsuit but also can recover lost wages, emotional distress damages and attorneys’ fees, even if they actually were never legally entitled to work for the employer.
Continue Reading Undocumented Workers May Pursue Claims Under California’s FEHA, So Says The California Supreme Court
US v. Quality Stores, Inc.: Supreme Court Finds Severance Payments Taxable Wages Under FICA
In an 8-0 decision[1] issued March 25, 2014 in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court held that severance payments made to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages for the purposes of withholding Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”) taxes, i.e., Social Security and Medicare. This decision resolves a circuit split created when the Sixth Circuit ruled in 2012 that these kinds of severance payments did not constitute “wages” under FICA[2] while the Third, Eighth and Federal Circuits had all previously held that at least some severance payments were “wages” subject to FICA taxes.[3]
In the wake of this decision, employers should, under most circumstances, treat severance payments made to involuntarily terminated employees as taxable wages subject to FICA taxes. There are exceptions to the general rule, however, and it is important for employers to seek competent legal counsel to assist in determining the tax status of a specific severance program.Continue Reading US v. Quality Stores, Inc.: Supreme Court Finds Severance Payments Taxable Wages Under FICA
Fears Of A Double-Dip Recession And Managing Workforce Reductions
By James R. Hays, Maranda W. Rosenthal, and Jonathan Stoler
As the risk of a double-dip recession looms and companies continue to adjust their workforces to adapt to the more challenging economic times, employers are being faced with making the tough decision regarding the possibility of layoffs. Workforce reductions are one of the most unpleasant events for employers to deal with and often involve both economic and emotional considerations. Layoffs can expose employers to unexpected pitfalls and disastrous legal consequences as the company tries to navigate the myriad complex laws involved. In recognition of the current economic climate and the enormous amount of work required to properly plan and execute a large-scale layoff, this article is intended to assist in identifying key issues and to suggest several best practices when implementing a reduction-in-force.Continue Reading Fears Of A Double-Dip Recession And Managing Workforce Reductions
Court Says Okay to Terminate Bipolar Employee Who Threatened Coworkers
Before filing suit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"), an employee must exhaust her administrative remedies with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). In the recently decided case of Wills v. Superior Court, the court gave little leeway to an employee, finding that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her DFEH complaint only alleged discrimination based on a denial of family/medical leave, while her lawsuit raised different allegations of disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and failure to accommodate.Continue Reading Court Says Okay to Terminate Bipolar Employee Who Threatened Coworkers
“I Quit,” “No, You’re Fired!” New York Supreme Court Tells Employer to Think Twice Before Terminating Employees Without Setting Forth a Reason
Justice Melvin L. Schweitzer of the New York Commercial Division recently issued a decision in Greater Talent Network, Inc. v. Alec Melman, et. al., Index No. 650522/2010 (Sup. Ct., NY County, Dec. 22, 2010) that can have important ramifications for New York employers.
Continue Reading “I Quit,” “No, You’re Fired!” New York Supreme Court Tells Employer to Think Twice Before Terminating Employees Without Setting Forth a Reason
California Court Addresses “Stray Remarks Doctrine” In Employment Discrimination Cases
Last week, the California Supreme Court decided Reid v. Google, Inc. This case is yet another reminder to California employers that it is worth their while to train their employees and supervisors to be cautious about what they say and what they put into writing in emails, memos, and so on. The case also illustrates the critical importance of employers being able to articulate the precise reasons why an employee is being terminated, communicating those exact reasons to the employee, and having documentation to prove all this in the event of litigation.Continue Reading California Court Addresses “Stray Remarks Doctrine” In Employment Discrimination Cases
California Court of Appeal Extends Wrongful Termination Cause of Action
A California Court of Appeal has recently held that a subsequent employer can be liable for wrongful termination in violation of public policy for firing a new employee when her prior employer attempted to enforce an unenforceable non-compete agreement.Continue Reading California Court of Appeal Extends Wrongful Termination Cause of Action
Public Policy Protects An Employee From Termination For Making A Good Faith But Mistaken Claim To Overtime
This week, a California Court of Appeal found that the plaintiff employee was entitled to a full trial on his wrongful termination claim, concluding that California public policy in favor of the employer’s duty to pay overtime wages protects an employee from termination for a mistaken but good faith claim to overtime wages.Continue Reading Public Policy Protects An Employee From Termination For Making A Good Faith But Mistaken Claim To Overtime
California Supreme Court Upholds Voluntary Employee Incentive Compensation Plan
On November 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court handed down its decision in Schachter v. Citigroup, Inc. At issue was Citigroup’s voluntary employee incentive compensation plan that provided employees with shares of restricted company stock at a reduced price in lieu of a portion of the employee’s annual cash compensation. Under the Plan, the employees voluntarily agreed that, should they resign or be terminated for cause before their restricted shares of stock vest, they would forfeit the stock and the portion of cash compensation they directed be paid in the form of the restricted stock.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Upholds Voluntary Employee Incentive Compensation Plan