Recently in Employment Law Category

Political patronage is a dirty word to many. It is one of the principles of the American Idea that in this land of opportunity, we'll choose the best person for the job, no matter their political affiliation. For about a century after our modern Constitutional government was formed, patronage was the name of the game and each change in administration meant a massive civil service turnover, and of course, corrupt bargains and payoffs for positions.

The Feds fixed the issue in 1883 with the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Puerto Rico had its own remedy, the Public Service Human Resources Administration Act of Puerto Pico, which espoused "merit principles" over patronage.

Don't you just hate it when the boss-man at a company has been sexually harassing employees for so long that no one can pinpoint when the harassment started, and everyone starts bickering about whether or not the company's wrongful employment practices policy covers his saucy antics?

It's the worst.

But if you're a lawyer for either the boss-man's company or the insurance company, that bickering means billables because the case is unlikely to be resolved in summary judgment.

Reading this case, we get the idea that the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals is not a big fan of Starbucks. That's not particularly surprising, given that Beantown is better known for Dunkin' Donuts.

Starbucks employees — or "partners" in the company lingo — are divided into four subcategories: store managers, assistant managers, shift supervisors, and baristas. Both shift supervisors and baristas are hourly wage employees, often working part-time. Baristas are frontline employees who serve food and beverages to customers; shift supervisors perform those functions and other functions as well. Shift supervisors are usually promoted from the ranks of baristas.

A three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of mixed-motive retaliation claims by government employees earlier this month.

Interestingly, the court found that such claims would fail when the purported discrimination was only one of the motivating factors behind the adverse employment action.

The removal of a controversial mural by Maine Governor Paul LePage is heading to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court will determine if the governor was within his rights to remove the mural.

Was the mural entitled to First Amendment protection or was the removal of the mural protected government speech? The U.S. District Court has already ruled in favor of the latter.

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.