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.
Results 1 to 5 of 6
Most popular |Most recent


Does Title VII apply to employees who do not personally engage in protected activity?

USA - October 31 2010 In June 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), does not extend to third parties who do not personally engage in protected activity....

William R. Horwitz.


Does the FLSA bar retaliation against employees who do not complain in writing?

USA - October 31 2010 In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 570 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2009), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a complaint against an employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. ("FLSA"), must be in writing in order to trigger the statute's anti-retaliation provision....

William R. Horwitz.


When does a non-decision maker's influence trigger the "Cat's Paw" theory?

USA - October 31 2010 The "Cat's Paw" theory (derived from a fable entitled "The Monkey and the Cat") refers to a person influencing the actions or decisions of another to accomplish his or her own goals....

William R. Horwitz.


Third Circuit: employees may qualify for FLSA's "retail commission exception" even if their commissions are not calculated as a strict percentage of sale price

USA - September 29 2010 Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that paying salespeople commissions that are not tied directly to the price of the product they sell does not necessarily render them ineligible for the retail commission exception to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq. (the "FLSA")....

William R. Horwitz.


A disabled employee may have a viable cause of action under the LAD for failure to accommodate even absent an adverse employment action

USA - September 29 2010 This month, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether an employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation alone is sufficient to maintain a cause of action under the Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the "LAD")....

William R. Horwitz.