Posts Tagged ‘Michael J. Cork’

Two-Way Media, LLC v. AT&T Operations, Inc. – Failure to Read Your Mail Is Not Excusable Neglect

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014

1por_Cork_Michael_JAuthor: Michael Cork (bio)

Phone: 317.464.1594

Email: [email protected]

After suffering a $40,000,000 judgment at trial, multiple attorneys and paralegals from two different defense firms missed the deadline for an appeal.  And they missed it in a “jaw-dropping” fashion.  The court denied defense counsel’s motion for more time based on “excusable neglect.” (more…)

Zzzz… Don’t Fall Asleep During the Interactive Process

Thursday, February 20th, 2014

1por_Cork_Michael_JAuthor: Michael Cork (bio)

Phone: 317.464.1594

Email: [email protected]

Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc.

Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, was reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving a narcoleptic employee, Kimberly Spurling.  The appellate court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to C & M Fine Pack in Spurling’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim.  Spurling alleged that C & M terminated her due to her narcolepsy without engaging her in the “interactive process” to determine if a “reasonable accommodation” existed that would allow Spurling to perform the essential functions of her job. (more…)

Donning and Doffing – U.S. Steel is Not Required to Pay Union Employees For It

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

1por_Cork_Michael_JAuthor: Michael Cork (bio)

Phone: 317.464.1594

Email: [email protected]

On Monday, all nine members of the United States Supreme Court agreed that U.S. Steel is not required to pay its union employees for “donning” and “doffing”—which is nothing more than putting on and taking off clothes required for the workplace—including safety gear.  (more…)

Document, Document, Document When Disciplining or Terminating Employees

Tuesday, December 31st, 2013

1por_Cork_Michael_JAuthor: Michael Cork (bio)

Phone: 317.464.1594

Email: [email protected]

The recent case of Akerson v. Pritzker and U.S. Department of Commerce (D. Ma. November 4, 2013) reinforces the need for employers to document, document, document when it comes to decisions to discipline and terminate employees. The plaintiff, Akerson, was employed by the U.S. Department of Commerce.  The DOC apparently “knee-jerked” the termination of a disabled employee without adequate documentation.  (more…)

Indiana Supreme Court Opens Door on Vacation Pay?

Tuesday, August 27th, 2013

On July 16th of this year, the Indiana Supreme Court published its opinion in Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Stephen R. Shofstall, Edward C. Posey, and Deborah N. Posey v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades AFL–CIO, CLC District Council 91.  The court held for the first time that unions and other voluntary membership associations in Indiana must comply with Indiana law and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute regarding their employees.  But whether those employees are also elected officials makes a crucial difference. (more…)

D.C. Court of Appeals Strikes President’s Recess Appointments

Friday, February 8th, 2013

President Obama recently met some resistance with the recess appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  On January 4th, a unanimous three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck the so-called “recess” appointments. (more…)

Welcome Back! In Compliance with USERRA, You Are Reinstated to the Position of “Terminated.” (Wait – What?!)

Thursday, February 7th, 2013

In December of last year, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the reinstatement requirement under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) may be satisfied by terminating the employee’s employment—if that is the position the employee would have held if he or she remained continuously employed.  (more…)

It’s 2013—Have You Updated Your FCRA Notices?

Wednesday, January 9th, 2013

The responsibility for enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) has been transferred from the Federal Trade Commission to the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The CFPB now has primary rule-making responsibility for the FCRA.  Accordingly, the contact information in the FCRA Summary of Rights form should be changed from the FTC to the CFPB. (more…)

Ongoing Investigations—Can You Prevent Employees From Discussing Them?

Tuesday, November 20th, 2012

Like many employers, you may instruct employees not to discuss ongoing investigations.  While that has been standard practice for most employers, it now risks a claim by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that you are violating Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7.  Section 7, in turn, states that—in addition to the right to organize and join unions—employees shall have the right to engage in “other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” (more…)

May v. Chrysler Group LLC—Internal Investigations Explained in a Very Expensive Fashion

Tuesday, October 16th, 2012

Chrysler received an object lesson in why internal investigations of employee complaints should be prompt and adequate.  And “adequate” means that, when an employee complains of an offense—serious harassment in this case—that is confirmed—the employer must “progressively stiffen” its efforts until the harassment stops. (more…)