Employment Law Archives - Page 12 of 17 - Parks Chesin & Walbert
148
archive,paged,category,category-employment,category-148,paged-12,category-paged-12,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,select-theme-ver-4.1,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.3,vc_responsive

The Abercrombie & Fitch “Look” Doesn’t Include a Hajib

Religious PrayerSince the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014), religious freedom has been a hot topic in the courts. The High Court recently heard oral argument in a case involving Abercrombie & Fitch’s refusal to hire a highly rated applicant because of her Muslim headscarf. The case is Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.  At issue in the case is the Abercrombie & Fitch “Look Policy” which promotes a “classic East Coast collegiate style” of clothing.  Traditional Muslim attire is apparently inconsistent with this “look.”

READ MORE

Can I be fired for serving on jury duty?

Jury duty is often called our civic duty.  It is the foundation of our legal system.  However, it is a burden on working people because of the interruption it can cause at work.  Employees often try to get out of jury duty service to avoid problems at home, and especially problems with their employers.  Employers don’t like jury duty either.

READ MORE

CLASS ACTION CHALLENGING THE STATE HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE PROMISED BENEFITS CONTINUES

Health Care

Ruling in favor of the Plaintiff, who is represented by Parks, Chesin & Walbert, along with co-counsel, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Cynthia D. Wright rejected the Attorney General’s contention that the Georgia State Health Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) is immune from suit. Order (D) 2014.10.09 Def’s Motion to Dismiss.  The Plan is administered by the Defendant Department of Community Health (“DCH”), and it provides health care coverage to hundreds of thousands of state employees, teachers and administrators of the State’s local public school systems.  The Court found the Plaintiff can sue DCH for breach of contract for failing to provide the benefits it promised once it accepted premiums from its members for enhanced levels of coverage under the Plan.

READ MORE

Employment Discrimination and McDonnell Douglas at Trial

As any lawyer practicing employment discrimination law learns, the burden shifting and order of presentment scheme set out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is standard in all discrimination cases, including Title VII, Section 1981, ADA, ADEA, and constitutional equal protection claims under Section 1983. Courts can take the test too literal and overlook critical evidence of discrimination in doing so. While there are many areas in which the McDonnell Douglas “test” has been overused, below I highlight its specific misuse at trial.READ MORE