Publication

  • Home
  • /
  • Publications
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • U.S. Supreme Court's Fall Employment Docket: Municipal Lawyer Magazine Features Article by Lawrence...
Search Publications




November 2010

U.S. Supreme Court's Fall Employment Docket: Municipal Lawyer Magazine Features Article by Lawrence Lee and Brandon Saxon

The September/October 2010 issue of The Municipal Lawyer Magazine (published by the International Municipal Lawyers Association) features an article co-authored by San Diego office Associate Brandon Saxon. The article, entitled “The Supreme Court’s 2010 Upcoming Employment Docket,” analyzes key employment cases that will be reviewed during the Court’s upcoming Fall Term. The cases focus on the following five priority concerns for employers.

  1. Background Investigations and Information Privacy: What is the scope of a job applicant’s rights during an employer’s vetting process? (National Aeronautics and Space Admin. V. Nelson)
  2. Influencing Employment Decisions: Can an employer be held liable for the unlawful intent of others who cause or influence, but do not personally make, an ultimate employment decision? (Staub v. Proctor Hospital)
  3. Retaliation: Does a verbal complaint constitute protected conduct under the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA? (Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.) Does section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 create a cause of action for third-party retaliation for persons who have not personally engaged in a protected activity or personally opposed the employer’s allegedly discriminatory conduct? (Thompson v. North America Stainless, LP)
  4. Undocumented Immigrants: Is the Legal Arizona Workers Act preempted by federal laws which expressly preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ, or recruit, or refer for a few for employment, unauthorized aliens? (Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Candelaria)
  5. “Likely Harm” Under ERISA: What is the appropriate standard for determining whether an ERISA plan participant is entitled to recover benefits based on an inaccurate explanation of benefits in a Summary Plan Description? (CIGNA Corp. v. Amara)

Please click here to read the article.

Employment Law

Brandon D. Saxon



Employment Law
ERISA
Labor

Loading...