How To Be The Lawyer Who Brings One of the First Ten Sexual Harassment Suits

Move to China. According to Go Asia Pacific Breaking News the first such suit has been filed in Beijing, and it is only the third in China.

Unemployment Compensation for the Telecommuter - What State?

Telecommuting, a concept that seems more talked about than acted on, does have novel problems. When a telecommuter living (and thus working) in Florida, for a New York based company wants to file for unemployment, which state will pay? Maybe neither. At least that's what happened to a Reuters employee. The AP Wire has the story on the decision by the New York top court upholding the denial of her benefits, saying under New York law it is the place of the employee, not the employer that controls for unemployment. The reason she applied in New York was that she had earlier been turned down by Florida.



To make matters worse, according to the opinion in Allen v. Commissioner of Labor, Allen who represented herself, is required to repay the amounts she received in unemployment from New York because she made a "false statement" when she said that she worked at the New York address of her employer. Even "unintentional" false statements, which is how the court apparently viewed this one, require repayment.



Although this particular fact situation is not very appealing, the Court noted it was deciding a case of first impression and was interpreting its statute which is based on a uniform statute, so it is similar to those adopted by other states in an effort to ensure uniformity. The definition in the statute puts the emphasis on the locality of the work with the reasoning being that the state where the employee is physically present to obtain new work should pay. Even the Court concedes that the idea of an interstate telecommuter was never contemplated when the unemployment laws were drafted, but at least in its view, the principles articulated there still work. Ms. Allen no doubt would beg to differ.

Wal-Mart in the Headlines With Sexual Orientation Policy

Wal-Mart will expand its non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation according to news reports, including Reuters. This is part of a growing trend among 'big business'. This may be one of the few cases where the business world is outpacing the political on an employment law issue.

Wondering What Facing A Post-Enron Jury Might Be Like?

Everyone agrees that for those of us who represent corporations in jury trials, the "Enron" issue is a major problem. But what exactly does that mean? Check out the views of some trial consultants in Post-Enron Jury Perceptions and What to Do About Them, originally published in the American Corporate Counsel Association Journal.

Leading Disability Carrier, UnumProvident Target of Litigation

Douglas Shuit's story in Workforce details some of the litigation that has engulfed UnumProvident over denials of disability policies. According to the company, only 1% of claims are denied, but a large verdict in Arizona and a fine by the Georgia Department of Insurance have made them a more attractive target. UnumProvident is now having to fight on several fronts - the courtroom, the media and the stock market as their stock price has had a precipitous decline. Probably worth reading and following, particularly if your company has their disability coverage.

8th Circuit - 7th Grade Behavior Not Enough For Male on Male Sexual Harassment

Blows to the scrotum on three or four occasions, accompanied by laughter reminds me of 7th grade behavior. Here the bully resigned, the victim didn't get fired and both the district court and appeals court (wisely in my opinion) held it was not enough to show gender harassment. Linville v. Sears (8th Cir. 6/30/03) [pdf]. It is amazing that the judicial system has to spend this much time on a case like this.

1st Circuit Leaves For Another Day Question of Whether Hostile Work Environment Claim Is Viable Under the ADA

In Rocafort v. IBM, the 1st Circuit affirms a summary judgment on an ADA claim brought by an individual who suffered anxiety attacks, including the fear that he was going to be terminated on his return to work. He also sought to raise a hostile environment claim. Saying the law was unsettled in the 1st Circuit on that issue, the court rather than addressing it found Rocafort had waived it by not raising it below. For those who might see this as just another case where the employer wins an ADA case, should review the facts carefully for the efforts, time and expense that IBM spent on an employee who was certainly not being productive.