Search

We recently reiterated that courts may not rely on state contract principles to "reshape traditional individualized arbitration by mandating classwide arbitration procedures without the parties' consent." Indeed, we recognized just last term that with class arbitration "the virtues Congress originally saw in arbitration, its speed and simplicity and inexpensiveness, would be shorn away and arbitration would end up looking like the litigation it was meant to displace. Arbitration of disputes about the meaning and 8 ILLR 39 interpretation of collective bargaining agreements has been common since before World War II, but arbitration involving statutory and individual contract claims is relatively recent. [Extracted from the article]

It explained that to "deny the right to appeal simply because the defendant has sought to "buy off" the individual private claims of the named plaintiffs […] would frustrate the objectives of class actions" and "invite waste of judicial resources" by requiring multiple plaintiffs with low-value claims to bring suit. Moreover, the reports only identified the other employees by their employee number, and the defendant did not fulfill the plaintiff's discovery requests for the identity of all the employees. There, a plaintiff in a putative class action suit had not yet moved for class certification when the defendant offered the plaintiff his individual monetary damages as well as requested injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. PART SIX ADMINISTRATION - JUDICIAL AND GENERAL 443 U. S. A. 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Gammella v. P .F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. Minimum reporting pay under the Wage Act and the minimum fair wage law - class actions HEADNOTES Facts The claimant alleged that his employer frequently violated the state requirement that employees who report for a scheduled work shift of three or more hours are required to be paid for at least three hours' wages at no less than the minimum wage. [Extracted from the article]

The issue in question was: Where the state law requires public employee unions to negotiate common interests as a committee, can the assertion of an impasse by one union be treated by management as triggering statutory impasse resolution procedures for all of the unions? Pointing to the absence of the word "committee" in RSA 273-A:12 and the references to individual bargaining units, see RSA 273-A:12, I (a)(1)-(2), the NEPBA asserts that requiring all five unions to maintain the bargaining committee format through impasse resolution procedures "improperly reads a committee bargaining requirement into RSA 273-A:12 that does not exist. 381 U. S. A. 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Supreme Court of New Hampshire Appeal of New England Police Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. Public sector collective bargaining - mandatory multi-union bargaining HEADNOTES Facts Five unions represent state employees and by state law must bargain as a single group. During the pendency of these complaints, the State advised all five unions that it would select a mediator and continued to assert that all of the unions must participate in impasse mediation "because the issues to be resolved affected all bargaining units. [Extracted from the article]

There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decision making. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee's sex, and the affected employee's sex is a but-for cause of his discharge. For an employer to discriminate against employees for being homosexual or transgender, the employer must intentionally discriminate against individual men and 224 ILLR 39 women in part because of sex. If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee's sex when deciding to discharge the employee - put differently, if changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer - a statutory violation has occurred. [Extracted from the article]

On May 18, 2016, Parker was called to a meeting with Moppins, the Human Resources Manager, and RCSI's in-house counsel, and at that meeting, Moppins simultaneously issued Parker two written warnings and then fired her. One warning was based on Jennings' complaint against Parker, and the other asserted that Parker had poor management ability and was insubordinate to Moppins. The following day, Parker arranged a meeting with Moppins to discuss the rumor, and at that meeting Moppins blamed Parker for "bringing the situation to the workplace." At an all-staff meeting at which the rumor was discussed, the warehouse manager slammed the door in Parker's face, and at another meeting, he screamed at Parker as he lost his temper while blaming Parker for the rumor. [Extracted from the article]

Employees can achieve this more extensive client contact in one of two ways: by virtue of selling to a greater number of customers or by selling more products to a smaller number of customers. Thus, unlike the SRA, which only prohibits solicitation of those ADP clients with whom the former employees "w[ere] involved or exposed", the RCA also prohibits solicitation of all current and prospective ADP clients. 87 U. S. A. 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ADP, LLC v. Rafferty Contractual one year prohibition against former employee soliciting current and prospective clients HEADNOTES Facts As a condition of employment, sales personnel were required to sign an agreement to not compete or solicit the employer's clients for a year after their employment terminated. And by setting sales goals for its employees and identifying the subset of employees that meet or exceed those goals, ADP has the ability to empirically measure which of its employees have more extensive client contact. [Extracted from the article]