Araujo v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 09-3329 (3d Cir., July 23, 2010) – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer was not equitably estopped from denying job elimination pension benefits to a former employee who argued that he was unable to understand his benefit options because he is not a native English speaker.
California Supreme Court: Holding Franchisor Liable as Employer Depends on Level of Control Over Day-to-Day Employment Decisions
Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (August 28, 2014): On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a decision holding that a franchisor that did not exhibit the characteristics of an “employer” was not vicariously liable for the wrongful conduct that one franchisee employee directed toward another franchisee employee. The state high court
On April 7, 2006, the United States Virgin Islands enacted Act No. 6829, which extends the scope of the territorial laws concerning sexual harassment and imposes substantial requirements on employers with respect to prohibiting sexual harassment. The Act amends Chapter 5 of the Virgin Islands Civil Rights Act and Chapter 17 of the Virgin Islands Discrimination in Employment Act.
Sixth Circuit Finds CBA Provision Requiring Union to Indemnify Employer for Withdrawal Liability Does Not Violate Public Policy Under ERISA
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision, which obligated a union to indemnify an employer for withdrawal liability did not violate public policy under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). This issue was undecided in the Sixth Circuit, and the decision provides some much-needed guidance for employers.