This tool will help you:
In TruServ Corp. v. NLRB, 254 F.3d 1105, (D.C. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressed whether 1) a genuine bargaining impasse had been reached prior to the employer's implementing terms and conditions of employment, and 2) whether the employer violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by disciplining unit employees pursuant to unilaterally implemented work rules and refusing to process employee grievances.
In NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962), the Supreme Court addressed whether an employer had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) duty to bargain collectively by instituting changes regarding matters that were the subjects of mandatory bargaining without first consulting the union.
In Makowski v. Smith Amundsen, LLC, 662 F.3d 818 (7th Cir. 2011), the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decided whether an employer's representative's statement could be used to prove discrimination in a decision to terminate an employee on FMLA maternity leave.
In Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014), the Supreme Court addressed whether the whistleblower provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) shields employees of public company contractors and subcontractors (e.g., investment advisers, lawyers and accountants) who perform work for the public company.
In U.S. v. Quality Stores Inc., the US Supreme Court reversed a decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and ruled that severance pay that was not tied to the receipt of state unemployment benefits was subject to FICA taxes.
In Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. 2011), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether an employee who "blew the whistle" to a person who lacked authority to correct the wrongdoing was protected from retaliation under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), in addition to other employment law claims.
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v Nassar, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4704 (June 24, 2013), the Supreme Court considered the standard of proof needed for an employee to win a retaliation lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against an employer.
In Vance v. Ball State University, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4703, the Supreme Court considered how much authority an employee needs to exert to be considered a supervisor for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
In Righi v. SMC Corporation of America, 632 F.3d 404 (7th Cir. 2011), the court addressed whether an employer interfered with an employee's Family and Medical Leave Act rights after the employee was terminated for missing work for nine days.
In Rockwell International Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007), the US Supreme Court addressed whether a former employee whistleblower of a government contractor was an original source of information.
XpertHR is a go-to resource for my company for guidance on HR compliance. Prior to choosing XpertHR, we looked into a few other resources, but in the end it came down to the ease of use and quality of the data, as well as the breadth of information on the site.
Sarah Anderson, HR Manager, Smokey Bones Bar & Fire Grill
© 2016 Reed Business Information Inc.
The materials and information included in the XpertHR service are provided for reference purposes only. They are not intended either as a substitute for professional advice or judgment or to provide legal or other advice with respect to particular circumstances. Use of the service is subject to our terms and conditions.
XpertHR is designed to work consistently across a range of browsers, including the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Firefox and Safari. XpertHR no longer supports Internet Explorer 6 or 7. Learn more.
© 2016 Reed Business Information Inc.