Employment Litigation

A Note addressing wage and hour audits under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This Note addresses preliminary issues private employers should consider, common wage and hour issues to evaluate, options for responding to problems discovered during the audit and best practices going forward after the audit. For information on requirements under state wage and hour laws, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

This Note describes best practices for preparing to defend the deposition of an employer's witness in an employment case. It discusses understanding basic rules and procedures, evaluation of the witness, explanations to the witness and conducting a mock deposition. This Note specifically addresses cases pending in federal court, but also is useful for cases pending in state courts.

This Note discusses single plaintiff employment discrimination litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981) and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). It addresses various stages of the case, including pleadings, discovery, dispositive motions, trial and settlement. This Note specifically addresses federal law, but it also is useful for cases pending in state courts.

A Note describing internal investigations into employee misconduct, including the types of workplace issues warranting an investigation, legal risks associated with conducting an investigation and best practices for conducting an investigation. This Note outlines the steps to be taken when conducting an internal investigation and post-interview activities. This Note addresses federal law.

A Note describing the steps an employer can take to prepare to successfully litigate a non-compete action, the primary options for enforcing a non-compete agreement and the strategic decisions involved with each option. This Note discusses gathering evidence, key steps to assess the enforceability of a non-compete, factors to consider before initiating legal action, cease and desist letters, declaratory judgments, seeking damages and requesting injunctive relief. This Note is jurisdiction neutral. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

This Note discusses systemic discrimination litigation. In particular, it discusses how to respond to information requests and subpoenas from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), issues to consider when deciding whether to challenge an EEOC subpoena, the EEOC's "sue first, ask questions later" litigation strategy and related best practices for employers. It is based on federal law.

A model letter for an employer to send or provide to a departed or departing employee to remind him of his continuing obligations to the employer. These obligations may include compliance with restrictive covenants, including non-compete, non-solicit and non-disclosure provisions, and the continuing duty of loyalty. This Standard Document includes integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips. It complies with federal law. State or local law may impose additional or different requirements.

Model questions for an employer's counsel to use when deposing the plaintiff in a single plaintiff discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document applies only to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

A standard form to record internal discrimination or harassment investigation findings. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips. This Standard Document is based on federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

An agreement between an employer and an employee releasing and indemnifying the employer from liability for accidents, injuries or other damages the employee suffers while engaged in an employer-sponsored activity or while using employer-provided equipment or facilities. This Standard Document is jurisdiction neutral. State or local law may impose additional or different requirements, but this document will be useful and relevant to employers in every state. This Standard Document includes an integrated drafting note with important explanations and drafting tips.

Model interrogatories for an employer's counsel to use when serving interrogatories on the plaintiff in a single plaintiff employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document applies to private workplaces. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

Model objections to document requests, sometimes referred to as requests for production or RFPs, for an employer's counsel to use when responding to document requests in a single plaintiff employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). This Standard Document is appropriate for use in defense of private employers. It is based on federal law. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

Model questions for interviewing the complaining employee, witnesses and the alleged harasser when investigating a sexual harassment complaint. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanatory and drafting tips. This Standard Document is based on federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A sample petition to revoke a subpoena duces tecum issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This Standard Document includes integrated notes and drafting tips. It is drafted in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the NLRB's Rules and Regulations.

A sample statement that employers should provide to unionized employees before conducting interviews about facts relevant to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unfair labor practice case. This Standard Document includes integrated notes explaining the information that must be included in the statement and other important points and drafting tips. It is drafted in compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the NLRB's decision in Johnnie's Poultry Co.

This Standard Clause can be included in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to set out an arbitration procedure for unions and employers to use to resolve disputes about application and interpretation of CBAs that could not be resolved in their grievance procedure. It is based on the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), but may be used by private sector employers governed by another federal law or public sector employers. This Standard Clause has integrated drafting notes with important explanations and negotiating tips.

This Standard Clause provides model language that can be used to characterize the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense in a brief supporting a motion for summary judgment. This affirmative defense can be used to defend against claims of hostile work environment by a supervisor or superior. This Standard Clause contemplates claims under federal law, but its basic framework may be used in response to claims under state or local law if recognized in the particular jurisdiction. Confirm the standards used in your particular jurisdiction before using this clause and cite jurisdiction-specific case law as appropriate. This Standard Clause includes integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

This Standard Clause provides model language that can be used to characterize the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting standard in a brief supporting a motion for summary judgment. The standard is the framework against which courts may assess a claim of discriminatory treatment. This Standard Clause contemplates claims under federal law, but its basic framework may be used in response to claims under state or local law if recognized in the particular jurisdiction. Confirm the standards used in your particular jurisdiction before using this clause and cite jurisdiction-specific case law as appropriate. This Standard Clause includes integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

A Checklist outlining considerations for an employer's counsel defending against a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information on disability discrimination claims under state law, see State Q&A under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist discussing considerations for an employer's counsel when defending an age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). For information on age discrimination claims under state law, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist of affirmative defenses to consider asserting when responding to a complaint in employment litigation cases. This Checklist considers affirmative defenses that a defendant employer may assert in various types of employment cases, including discrimination, harassment, wage and hour and unlawful termination under state law. This Checklist is based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but is also useful for cases pending in state courts.

A Checklist of steps to take when preparing to depose the plaintiff in an employment case. This Checklist addresses noticing and scheduling the deposition, making logistical arrangements for the deposition, researching facts and law relevant to the case, preparing the deposition outline and exhibits, and anticipating issues that may arise at the deposition. This Checklist is based on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but is also useful for cases pending in state courts.

A Checklist to help employers minimize the legal risks presented by employer-sponsored holiday parties. This checklist addresses sexual harassment prevention, avoiding harms created by alcohol consumption, workers' compensation liability, and wage and hour claims. This resource is jurisdiction-neutral. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tools under Related Content to the right.

A Chart setting out the limits and discretionary standards of the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) jurisdiction over certain employers, labor disputes and employment practices, and workers. These limits and standards are set by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), federal regulations and federal court and NLRB precedent.

A Checklist to help employers prepare to arbitrate labor disputes typically under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This Checklist is primarily intended for employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which covers most private sector employers. This Checklist may also be useful to non-covered employers.

A Checklist of issues for an employer to consider in deterring sexual harassment and responding to internal sexual harassment complaints, including drafting effective anti-harassment policies, training supervisors and staff and conducting internal investigations. This Checklist addresses federal law. For information on state law considerations, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right.

A Checklist of steps to take when responding to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charges, particularly sexual harassment charges. This Checklist addresses federal law. For information on state law requirements, see the State Q&A Tool under Related Content to the right. 

A Chart of statute of limitations under major federal labor and employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981).

This tool enables subscribers to search and compare PLC's Employment Claims in Release Agreements State Q&A resources. Questions and answers address state-specific claims to identify in release agreements, to omit from release agreements and more. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "Submit" button. To see all of PLC's State Q&As on Employment Claims in Release Agreements, see State Q&A Guide to Employment Claims in Release Agreements. To see all of PLC's State Q&As, including relevant Legal Updates since the publication date (under Related Content), see individual Q&As on the Labor & Employment State Q&As landing page.

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Alabama. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Arkansas. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Colorado. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in the District of Columbia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Georgia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Illinois. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Iowa. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Kentucky. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Maine. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Massachusetts. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Minnesota. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Missouri. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in New Hampshire. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in New Mexico. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement, as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in North Carolina. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Oklahoma.  This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements.  Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool). 

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Pennsylvania. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in South Carolina. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Texas. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in Virginia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded.  Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

A Q&A guide to release of claims agreements for private employers in West Virginia. This Q&A addresses statutory and common law claims that may be released in a valid and enforceable written agreement as well as employment claims or specific contract language that should be included or excluded. Federal, local or municipal law may impose additional or different requirements. Answers to questions can be compared across a number of jurisdictions (see Employment Claims in Release Agreements: State Q&A Tool).

An expert Q&A with Douglas Darch of Backer & McKenzie LLP on the implications for employers of the US Supreme Court's decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, holding that an FLSA collective action was properly dismissed after the sole plaintiff's individual claims were rendered moot by the defense's offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 68.

Since the US Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, courts have taken a variety of approaches to enforcing employment arbitration agreements. This article analyzes the state of post-Concepcion case law in California and in other parts of the country.

An expert Q&A with Donald Livingston of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) systemic discrimination investigations and litigation.

In EEOC v. Memphis Health Center, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held a government plaintiff may be liable to a defendant for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) if the government's claim as a whole is not substantially justified. With this case of first impression, the Sixth Circuit becomes the fifth appellate court to address the government's potential financial liability to a defendant under the EAJA.

In Harrell v. American Red Cross, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a district court should have ordered rescission of all of an employer's unilateral changes to bargaining unit employees' terms and conditions of employment after finding that the union was entitled to temporary injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, the US Supreme Court held in a 5 to 4 decision that a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action was properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the plaintiff's individual claims became moot, leaving her with no personal interest in representing other unnamed, putative claimants in the action. The decision highlights, but does not resolve, a circuit court split on the question of whether a plaintiff's rejection of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 68 offer of judgment that fully satisfies her claims renders the claims moot.

In Bechtel v. Administrative Review Board, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit clarified the burden-shifting framework applicable to whistleblower retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The Second Circuit denied the petitioner employee's petition for review, holding that the Administrative Review Board (ARB) did not act arbitrarily or capriciously, or abuse its discretion, when it affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissing the petitioner's complaint.

In Supply Technologies, LLC, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that an employer's mandatory arbitration policy governing employment disputes for nonunion workers would be reasonably construed to interfere with employees' Section 7 rights in spite of a disclaimer allowing employees to bring and participate in government actions.

In EEOC v. KarenKim, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by denying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s motion for injunctive relief against a terminated sexual harasser. The court found there was sufficient danger harassment could continue despite the harasser's termination where he was in a romantic relationship with the defendant company's owner and that relationship was the primary reason the harassment had been allowed to continue.

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled in Communication Workers of America v. Avaya, Inc. that a district court improperly presumed that a union, which had a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and a neutrality agreement with the employer, was entitled to arbitrate a dispute about the managerial status of employees it intented to organize. The Tenth Circuit held that the court should have applied a more searching judicial review to determine the dispute was not arbitrable.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses Truly Nolen of Am. v. Superior Court, in which a California Court of Appeal vacated a trial court's order directing an employer and employee to resolve wage and hour claims by class arbitration. In doing so, the court found that the California Supreme Court's decision in Gentry v. Superior Court, which held that class action waivers are void in certain circumstances, remains valid in spite of language in recent US Supreme Court opinions that appeared to call Gentry's reasoning into question.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses Williams v. Smith, in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a prospective employee, an assistant coach of a college basketball team, could not assert a claim for negligent misrepresentation against the team's head coach, who offered and later rescinded a job opportunity. A negligent representation claim is unavailable where a prospective employment relationship is negotiated at arm's length between sophisticated business persons and does not involve a professional, fiduciary or other special legal relationship. In Williams, the coaches engaged in an arm's length negotiation, and therefore the head coach did not owe a duty of care to the assistant.

In Martin v. Spring Break '83 Productions, L.L.C., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an employer and a labor union could enter a private unsupervised settlement agreement releasing union-represented employees' substantive claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The settlement was permissible because there was a bona fide dispute over hours worked, and the union addressed, rather than waived, the employees' substantive FLSA claims in the settlement. 

This Law Firm Publication by Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. discusses the Arizona Supreme Court's recent decision in Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc., which held that an employer was not vicariously liable for its employee's off-duty negligent conduct, a car accident during an out-of-town assignment. The accident occurred while the employee was driving back to his hotel after dinner. The employee was not subject to the employer's control at the time of the accident because the employee was not serving the employer's economic interests. Therefore, the employer was not vicariously liable to the victim of the accident. This case is significant for employers because the Arizona Supreme Court declined to extend a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision, where the court found that an Arizona police officer was acting in the course and scope of his employment when he crashed his state-owned vehicle into the plaintiff's car while going to lunch during an out-of-town business trip.

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses the California Supreme Court's decision in Coito v. Superior Court, ruling that at least a qualified work product protection applies to: Recordings of witness interviews conducted by investigators employed by counsel. The identity of witnesses from whom counsel obtained statements. The Court also held that an absolute privilege may apply in certain circumstances. Based on this case, witness statements in employment cases may be entitled to qualified or absolute work product protection.

In Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a pregnancy and national origin discrimination and retaliation suit. In so holding, the Seventh Circuit found that forcing a pregnant employee to take an unpaid leave of absence due to her inability to perform essential job functions constitutes a materially adverse employment action.     

This Law Firm Publication by Jackson Lewis LLP discusses a California Court of Appeal's decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation upholding a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement and distinguishing the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) decision in D.R. Horton. The court followed AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, noting Concepcion made no exception for employment-related disputes in reiterating the general rule that arbitration agreements must be enforced according to their terms. The court also held the arbitration agreement barred the plaintiff from bringing claims under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit clarified the standard for proving discrimination in single-motive cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held in Ponce v. Billington that plaintiffs need not prove discrimination was the sole cause of an employer's adverse employment action to prevail on a Title VII claim.

This Law Firm Publication by Constangy Brooks & Smith, LLP, discusses Melia v. Zenhire, Inc., in which the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court identified the circumstances when an out-of-state forum selection clause in an employment contract violates the Massachusetts Wage Act. In Melia, the court held that a forum selection clause is a special contract disallowed by the Wage Act when the employee's claim is covered by the Wage Act, the court of the forum state would not apply Massachusetts law, and the employee would be deprived of a substantive right under the Wage Act. 

This Law Firm Publication by Ford & Harrison LLP discusses the Texas Supreme Court's decision in In re Frank Kent Motor Company d/b/a Frank Kent Cadillac. In that case, an at-will employee argued that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid because he was coerced into signing it when his employer threatened to terminate his employment if he did not sign it. The Texas Supreme Court upheld the jury trial waiver, holding that the employer's threat was not coercion that would invalidate the jury trial waiver because the employer had a legal right to fire the at-will employee for almost any reason, including the employee's refusal to accept new employment terms.

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, a disability discrimination case involving two individual claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision's (EEOC) administrative subpoena seeking the employer's nationwide hiring records, reasoning that the requested information was not relevant and overbroad.

In LaVoice v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state wage and hour claims despite a class and collective action waiver. The court found AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, precluded LaVoice's argument that the FLSA creates an unwaivable right to collective actions. Notably, the court rejected the argument that D.R. Horton, Inc. supported a contrary reading of AT&T Mobility.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held that requiring employees, as a condition of employment, to sign an arbitration agreement prohibiting them from filing collective or class actions for employment-related claims violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In its January 3, 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., the NLRB also held that its decision does not conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and distinguished AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.