We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 127

What’s new in the world of job safety?

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2009

Previous columns discussed egress (April 2007), exposure to falling loads (June 2007), hazardous atmospheres (October 2007), and water accumulation (November 2008

Court declines to impose excessive relevancy review, finds discovery requests too broad, refuses sanctions for failure to serve detailed preservation request

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 6 2008

February saw no less than six decisions address details of the burden imposed on a responding party to search and produce relevant documents

“Me, too” evidence in discrimination cases: not always admissible, not always excluded

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 29 2008

On February 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in SprintUnited Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, which was one of the most closely watched employment discrimination cases of the current Supreme Court term

High court rules individual pay decisions must be timely challenged

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 8 2007

In a decision important to employers, a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs relying on a Title VII disparate treatment discrimination theory (race, sex, etc.) must timely challenge pay decisions, and cannot rely upon the “continuing violation” theory to challenge allegedly discriminatory decisions that were made prior to the time period for filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (300 days in Ohio

What the courts are saying...

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 11 2009

We begin the month with a case from the Court of Claims of Ohio

Supreme Court adopts an expansive definition of what can be a “charge” of age discrimination

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 8 2008

On Feb. 27, 2008, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, a case that will have a profound impact on the way age discrimination claims are handled under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act

Administrative assistant’s failure to comply with company policy in searching for Rule 26(a) initial disclosure material results in sanctions against defendant for tardy production of video tape

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 10 2008

In this wrongful disability termination action, plaintiff sought sanctions for defendants’ tardiness in producing a portion of a video the kitchen video as part of defendant’s initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a

What the courts are saying...

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2008

Our case summaries for the month of April begin with an opinion from the Court of Appeals for Medina County

Home healthcare workers: minimum wage laws

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2007

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision affecting the compensation of home healthcare employees

Private sector discrimination charges on the rise in 2007

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 26 2008

In a March 5, 2008 news release, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that discrimination charges from the 2007 fiscal year were the highest in five years

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy