Recently in Employment Law Category

Mutual fund employees at publicly-traded companies are not covered by federal whistleblower laws, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday.

In a case of first impression, the First Circuit overturned a lower court’s decision to apply the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to private company advisers that contract with public companies.

The case involved two former Fidelity Investments employees who claimed that they were punished by their employer for alleging fraudulent practices at the company.

Fidelity argued that the employees weren’t covered by Sarbanes-Oxley since it is not a publicly traded company that Congress intended the Act to cover.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to a Rhode Island ordinance requiring new hospitality employers to retain their predecessor’s employees for three months.

The challenger, Rhode Island Hospitality Association’s, primary argument was that the National Labor Relations Act preempted the ordinance. The trade group also argued that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause and Contract Clause, but the First Circuit quickly dismissed both as non-serious and focused on its preemption clams.

It's common for employees to sometimes feel like they have no power or control over their jobs. Marx's alienation theory basically states that "you're just another brick in the wall."

If you don't feel like you are the director of your actions in your current job, perhaps you should consider a career in hospitality? The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Hines v. State Room, Inc. that banquet sales managers have a fair amount of sufficient discretion and independent judgment to at least qualify for the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

We never thought we'd see the day when a First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion would yield discussions of Bozo and an age discrimination suit, but, surprisingly, that day has come.

International Shipping Corporation (Intership) fired Genaro Bonefont-Igaravidez in 2007, (after 57 years on the job), for attacking his boss, also known as a "Bozo."

Bonefont said the alleged attack was just a pretext, and filed an age discrimination suit against Intership. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, last week, found that Bonefont did not have enough evidence to prove to a reasonable fact finder that he was wrongfully terminated.

Should an employer offer a courtesy interview to an underqualified, current employee who applies to an opening within the company? Probably not based on a recent case in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The First Circuit rejected a discriminatory hiring appeal from a Plymouth County Sheriff's office employee last week, finding that the district court had properly granted summary judgment for the sheriff's department.

Former Comcast regional television personality Barry Nolan lost his speech-motivated retaliation appeal against Comcast this week in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Nolan claimed that he was fired for publicly criticizing Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. The Court found that Nolan’s Comcast contract permitted his dismissal with or without cause and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case.

Is Barry Nolan a patriot or pinhead? Let’s turn to the talking points to examine whether Nolan’s firing was tainted with an O’Reilly factor.

Nolan was employed by Comcast as the executive producer and host of the television program “Backstage with Barry Nolan.” Two paragraphs of Nolan’s Comcast contract addressed the possibility of Nolan’s premature discharge, and afforded Comcast sole and absolute discretion to dismiss Nolan.

Denial of anti-SLAPP motion reversed

Godin v. Schencks, 09-2324, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of the individual defendants' motions to dismiss under Maine's anti-SLAPP statute, in a former elementary school principal's suit against a school board and a union, claiming violation of her due process rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and state law claims against three school employees. 

Award of attorney's fees and sanctions against former police officers in their civil rights suit

Lamboy-Ortiz v. Ortiz-Velez, 09-1640, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of $130,000 in attorney's fees and over $60,000 in sanctions against plaintiffs and their counse, in former police officers' suit against a mayor and various members of a police department, each of whom belong to the opposition Popular Democratic Party (PDP), in Puerto Rico, claiming that defendants conspired to deprive them of their civil rights and effectively remove them from the local police force.