Sass v. MTA Bus Co., 10-CV-4079, (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012): The plaintiff, a former bus maintenance supervisor at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Bus Company (MTA Bus), sued MTA Bus alleging retaliation in violation of state and federal law. In March 2008, the plaintiff reported an MTA Bus roster containing two Nazi symbols to his supervisor, who failed to take any action. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave a copy of the roster to his co-worker, who provided it to management, prompting an investigation by the Chief Officer of Operation Improvement and Internal Studies. During the investigation, the plaintiff stated that he had previously given the document to his supervisor, who failed to take action. The investigation also revealed that the document had been altered and that the plaintiff misrepresented certain facts. After the disciplinary hearing, MTA Bus discharged the plaintiff and gave his co-worker a 30-day suspension and final warning.
Does the “No-Rehire” Provision in Your Settlement Agreement Restrain the Lawful Practice of a Profession?
When resolving an employment dispute, employers often wish to include a “no-rehire” provision in the settlement agreement. In a typical no-rehire clause, the parties agree that they wish to resolve their dispute and sever any relationship they may have now or in the future. The employee agrees that his employment has ended and promises not to seek reemployment with the company. Further, if the employee obtains reemployment with the company or any related entity, the employee agrees that his or her employment may be terminated immediately without any legal recourse.
As we forecast in our August 2015 post, “The SEC’s Interpretative Guidance on Internal Whistleblowing Under the Dodd-Frank Act,” a federal court of appeals today issued a decision in line with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) interpretation that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act protects an individual who reports a violation of securities laws only internally before suffering an adverse employment action. If the decision stands, the split of authority among the courts of appeals resulting from the decision sets the stage for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On Tuesday, July 18, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Miller v. Department of Corrections, an eagerly-anticipated decision pertaining to sexual harassment claims brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). According to Scott J. Witlin, a shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins, “[t]his decision weakens somewhat the long line of cases that held that favoritism toward a paramour was not discrimination against others.”