About the author
Eric A. Welter is an employment lawyer and litigator with the Welter Law Firm, P.C. in Herndon, Virginia. He is licensed to practice law in Virginia, Maryland, Washington D.C., Texas and California.
The Welter Law Firm represents and advises employers on all aspects of the employment relationship and represents businesses in commercial and franchise litigation. The firm’s offices are located in Northern Virginia; Los Angeles, California; and Austin, Texas.
Join Our Email List
Archives by Date
May 2017 M T W T F S S « Jan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
© Welter Law Firm, P.C.
"The Laconic Law Blog" is a trademark of Welter Law Firm, P.C.
Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court
On December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court released a decision holding that employees working in Amazon.com’s warehouses were not entitled to compensation under the FLSA for time spent going through mandatory security checks at the end of their … Continue reading
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court granted cert in Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC, and will consider a dispute over the EEOC’s duty to conciliate charges of job discrimination before filing lawsuits against employers. The Court will hear an … Continue reading
Federal agencies continue to institute progressive social reforms while Congress remains divided. On June 20, 2014, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a press release heralding a proposed rule that would extend FMLA rights to all federal employees in valid, same-sex marriages. … Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that severance payments to laid off workers are subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA.
The Supreme Court has been asked to clarify a longstanding circuit conflict over the extent to which the EEOC must exhaust conciliation efforts with employers before filing suit.
In Lawson v. FMR, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held, as a matter of first impression, that only employees of public companies receive whistleblower protection against retaliatory actions by their employer. The Court found that … Continue reading
On January 6, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced in a news release that it will not seek U.S. Supreme Court review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions invalidating the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule, which would have … Continue reading
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, upholding the use of the so-called “cats paw” theory as a method of proving discrimination. More after the break.
Jottings by an Employer’s Lawyer and Connecticut Employment Law Blog have posts here and here regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer’s employment law experience and decisions. Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Law Blog has additional information here.
In 14 Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett, the U.S. Supreme Court held yesterday that “[a] provision in a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.” A … Continue reading
On January 26, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville. A copy of the opinion is here. The Court unanimously held that Title VII’s antiretaliation provision extends to an … Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions on January 21, 2009, that have employment/labor law implications. Additional case information can be found on SCOTUS blog. In Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, the Court held that Title IX of the Education … Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in its first employment case of the term. The Court will decide whether an employee who participates in an internal sexual harassment investigation is protected from retaliation under Title VII. Given the … Continue reading
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries that 42 U.S.C. section 1981 provides a remedy for claims of retaliation for complaining about discrimination in connection with the making or enforcement of contracts. Section 1981 itself prohibits … Continue reading
In an opinion issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court found that an intake form and affidavit that requested the EEOC to take action on behalf of the complainant constituted a “charge” of discrimination under the EEOC’s regulations. The case is … Continue reading