In Mercado v. Donahoe, No. 11-2972, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13226, (3rd Cir. June 26, 2012), the plaintiff, a probationary part-time employee, sued his employer alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his gender (male) and national origin (Hispanic). In support of his claims, the plaintiff pointed to the employer’s allegedly more favorable treatment of a white, female, non-probationary employee. Affirming the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the employee identified by the plaintiff was not a proper comparator and was not similarly situated to the plaintiff because, among other reasons, she had completed her probationary period and was no longer a probationary employee at the time that the plaintiff was hired.
The year 2018 saw the issuance of several noteworthy federal workplace safety and health decisions.
The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between clients and their attorneys made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. In Upjohn Co. v. United States, a seminal 1981 decision addressing this topic in the corporate context, the Supreme Court of the United States noted: “[i]n light of the vast and complicated array of regulatory legislation confronting the modern corporation, corporations … ‘constantly go to lawyers to find out how to obey the law.’” This reality in part led the Supreme Court in Upjohn to reject a narrow view of the persons within a corporation to whom communications with an attorney are privileged.
New Jersey Legislative Summer Round-up: Social Media, Pay Equity Protection Laws Enacted; Misclassification Law Vetoed
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had a busy summer, signing into law two important employment bills, and vetoing a third. The state’s new social media privacy law affords new protections to employees and applicants concerning their social media accounts, A second enacted bill prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who…..