Who is a “supervisor”? Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling sides with employers

June 24, 2013 - by: HR Hero Alerts 0 COMMENTS

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today held that an employee is considered a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if the employer gave him or her the authority to take tangible employment actions (such as hiring, demoting, or disciplining) against the complaining employee.

The employee in the case, Maetta Vance, claimed she was harassed on the basis of race by a worker whom she viewed as a supervisor. She claimed the alleged harasser had the authority to direct her daily activities, but there was no evidence of any authority to fire, discipline, or take other tangible job actions. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even if the worker directed Vance’s day-to-day activities, those responsibilities weren’t enough to make her a supervisor for purposes of a harassment claim under Title VII.

read more…

High court agrees to hear NLRB recess appointments case

June 24, 2013 - by: HR Hero 0 COMMENTS

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal in Noel Canning v. NLRB.

In the Noel Canning case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that three of President Barack Obama’s so-called recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) were unconstitutional. Without the three appointees, the Board lacked a necessary quorum to act. Thus, the D.C. Circuit’s ruling raised questions about the validity of hundreds of NLRB actions, including union-friendly decisions on social media, confidentiality rules, and off-duty employees’ access to workplaces.

The U.S. Constitution provides that the Senate must consent to the president’s nominees to federal agencies. The Constitution gives the president the authority to fill vacancies that “may happen” during the Senate’s recess that “shall expire at the end of the next session.”

read more…

NLRB nominees face opposition during Senate committee hearing

May 17, 2013 - by: Tammy Binford 0 COMMENTS

On May 16, President Barack Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and the two nominees who were selected as recess appointees in 2012 failed to impress the committee’s ranking member, Senator Lamar Alexander.

Alexander (R-Tennessee) said he would oppose the nominations of Democrats Sharon Block and Richard Griffin because “they continued to decide cases after the federal appellate court unanimously decided they were unconstitutionally appointed.”

read more…

NLRB wants Supreme Court review of recess appointments decision

March 14, 2013 - by: Tammy Binford 0 COMMENTS

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced on March 12 it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that says the appointment of two Board members is invalid.

In consultation with the Justice Department, the NLRB said it intends to file a petition by the April 25 deadline for Supreme Court review.

On January 25, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in Noel Canning v. NLRB that President Barack Obama acted unconstitutionally when he made three recess appointments to the Board on January 4, 2012.

read more…

Supreme Court ruling bolsters use of mandatory arbitration

by Charles S. Plumb

Employers requiring employees to submit disputes to mandatory arbitration rather than filing a lawsuit got a boost from a November 26 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in an Oklahoma case.

In the case, two employees of Nitro-Lift, a provider of services to oil and gas well operators, left their jobs to work for a competitor. The two had signed confidentiality and noncompetition agreements that included a clause requiring the parties to submit disputes to mandatory arbitration.

read more…

What the Supreme Court’s Upholding of the PPACA Means for Employers

U.S. Supreme Court BuildingBy Jacqueline R. Scott, David S. Fortney, and Cynthia Ozger-Pascu
Fortney & Scott, LLC

In a historical ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the significant healthcare reform provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), enacted by Congress in 2010 in a sharply divided vote along partisan political lines and subsequently challenged on constitutional grounds by 26 states and employer representatives. On June 28, the Court issued an extensive decision, which included — to the surprise of many Court watchers — a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and the four liberal justices, along with concurring opinions and dissents by other justices.

read more…

New Urgency on Healthcare Reform: More Pointers for Employers

Health Care Reform and EmployersBy Jason Lacey
Foulston Siefkin LLP

The legal underpinnings of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on healthcare reform are complex, but the bottom line is very clear for employers: Nothing has changed. The law that went into effect March 23, 2010 (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA), and has been in effect ever since, remains wholly intact.

read more…

Employers Need to Continue Healthcare Reform Implementation

June 29, 2012 - by: Jessica Webb-Ayer 0 COMMENTS

U.S. Supreme Court BuildingThe U.S. Supreme Court held the attention of the nation (and employers) on Thursday, June 28, when it released its highly anticipated decision on the healthcare reform law (the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) enacted in March 2010. In a decision that surprised many analysts, the Court upheld the law in a 5-4 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

So what did the Court rule, and what does its decision mean for employers going forward?

read more…

Employers: “Full Speed Ahead” on Healthcare Reform

June 28, 2012 - by: HR Hero 2 COMMENTS

U.S. Supreme Court BuildingBy Douglas R. Chamberlain
Sulloway & Hollis, P.L.L.C.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision on healthcare reform (also known as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) will be dissected and argued about for many years to come. The Court essentially upheld all the key elements of the healthcare reform law — most notably the so-called “individual mandate,” which will require that individuals purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty (or “tax”). There are two surprising elements to the Court’s decision: read more…

Supreme Court Upholds Healthcare Reform Law

June 28, 2012 - by: Jessica Webb-Ayer 0 COMMENTS

U.S. Supreme Court BuildingBy Jessica Webb-Ayer

The wait is over: The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the massive healthcare reform law (also known as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) enacted in March 2010 is constitutional. So what happened, and what does this mean for employers?

read more…

 Page 5 of 10  « First  ... « 3  4  5  6  7 » ...  Last »