Case on Point

President Obama Refuses to Sign Executive Order Protecting LGBT Individuals from Employment Discrimination by Federal Contractors

Kate Sedey — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:52:21 GMT

We cannot express how truly disappointed we are in the Obama administration’s failure to protect LGBT individuals’ rights to a discrimination-free workplace.

In early 2009, we were excited to read that President Obama’s employment law agenda included a focus on LGBT employees and explicitly promised to push for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a proposed federal statute which would afford LGBT employees the same protections from discrimination in the workplace as women, disabled and older individuals (to name just a few protected categories). However, since taking office, President Obama has done little to advance that goal. Instead, ENDA, which has been languishing in Congress for almost twenty years now in one form or another, remains un-passed.

Then, just a week ago, President Obama refused to sign an executive order which would have prohibited federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees. Significantly, while campaigning for President in 2008, Mr. Obama stated that he would support the repeal of a 1953 executive order issued by President Eisenhower which explicitly prohibited federal contractors from hiring gay employees. However, now, rather than making good on that claim, President Obama has refused to sign an executive order doing just that and has stated that he now believes it is more appropriate to wait for Congress to take action on this issue.

In a time when Mr. Obama has signed numerous executive orders under the mantra, “We can’t wait” – indicating that he will take action via executive orders where Congress refuses to take the necessary actions itself – it is unbelievable that President Obama has refused to take this step to protect LGBT employees in one small area of the workforce, an area which is arguably directly under the President’s control – federal contractors.

To make matters even more frustrating, I recently noticed in my Facebook feed that the President has published a chart showing what he refers to as the “three years of progress” he has made for the LGBT community. While there is no argument that the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was a big step forward, it is infuriating that he chose this moment to tout his support for the LGBT community after so recently indicating his unwillingness to stand up for their rights in the workplace.

In this day and age, when workplace discrimination (although it remains fairly rampant) has clearly been held to be unlawful and unpopular, it is infuriating that the President cannot at least take incremental steps to protect LGBT employees from that fate.

Department of Labor Begins Enforcing Breastfeeding Rules

Kate Sedey — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:40:15 GMT

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is best known as President Obama’s effort to overhaul the American health care system. However, amongst its many provisions, the law created an obligation on employers to provide time and space for nursing mothers to express breast milk.

The law specifically requires that any employer with fifty or more employees provide working mothers a reasonable break every time they need to pump breast milk for one year after giving birth. Additionally, the employer must provide a private space, other than a bathroom, for this purpose.

While the Act was first signed into law in March of 2010, the Department of Labor has been wrestling with creation of rules and regulation for its enforcement for the last two years. Thankfully, despite that holdup, the Department has recently begun to enforce the law. Indeed, the DOL has issued 23 citations already against companies, including Dillard’s, Dollar General, Starbucks and McDonald’s, for failing to provide adequate time and/or space for working mothers to pump breast milk. These citations have resulted in fines, awards of back pay, and agreements from employers to comply with the law moving forward.

While the DOL continues to work on its final rules for enforcement, these recent citations are a good reminder to employers that the law is in effect and must be followed regardless.

To read more about this issue, visit the following link: http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9922427-breast-feeding-at-work-now-protected-by-law.

Illinois Family Medical Leave Act (House Bill 4724) Needs Your Support

Kendra L Kutko — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:18:02 GMT

Illinois law-makers have proposed important legislation to ensure that gay and lesbian couples in civil unions possess the same legal entitlement to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work to care for a child, parent, or spouse with a serious health condition as married couples already possess under the federal Family Medical Leave Act. Click below if you have any interest in supporting this significant step forward in civil rights:

http://action.aclu.org/site/MessageViewer?dlv_id=89302&em_id=86883.0

Some Positive Job News

Kendra L Kutko — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:25:57 GMT

For anyone unemployed or contemplating a change in career, check out this link, which shows some interesting career options in today’s economy that offer solid financial opportunity and show some positive trends in growth over the next several years.

http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/02/salary-growth.html

Illinois Court Renders Favorable Ruling for Employee Sued by Employer on Employer’s “Information and Belief”

Kate Sedey — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:24:00 GMT

Author: Kendra Kutko, Associate Attorney at The Case Law Firm, LLC

In an employment climate where non-competition agreements, non-solicitation agreements, and other restrictive covenants have become rather standard mechanisms that allow employers to protect their economic interests, the rising number of employees who sign these agreements as a condition of hire must confront the unsavory possibility that they may one day face a lawsuit when they decide to leave those employers in pursuit of other job opportunities. Indeed, our practice has seen a marked increase in cases where employers have filed suit against former employees, alleging breaches of such agreements.

The task of defending against these types of employer-initiated legal actions entails extensive time and cost for employees who often have modest resources. However, in one of our recent cases, we obtained a great decision by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois that should provide optimism for employees who currently remain bound by restrictive covenants and should provide pause to employers who may contemplate filing suit over these agreements.

In TriNet International, LLC v. Synchronous Solutions, Inc. et al., No. 2011 L 005526, the employer filed a third-party complaint against its former employee for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and tortious interference with contract after the employee left the company to pursue another career opportunity. The employee had signed an employment agreement with the employer, which contained a non-solicitation provision and a non-competition provision. All causes of action filed against the employee derived from the employer’s “information and belief” that the employee allegedly “solicited” the employer’s client and “intentionally and purposefully induced” the employer’s client to terminate its business relationship with the employer so as to steal that corporate opportunity for the employee’s own financial benefit. The employee adamantly denied these allegations, but most significantly, the employer presented no facts in support of these allegations.

The employee subsequently moved to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety, arguing that the employer presented mere conclusions of fact and law without providing any detailed factual underpinnings with which to support its causes of action such that the third-party complaint remained deficient under Illinois fact-pleading standards. In ruling on this motion, the Circuit Court determined that the employer’s allegations against the employee lacked sufficient factual specificity to meet the Illinois fact-pleading requirements. Consequently, the Circuit Court granted the employee’s motion to dismiss. (1/12/12 Order Granting Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint, Bartkowicz, J.).

Although it seems unlikely that employers will shy away from filing suit against employees over restrictive covenants any time soon, the TriNet decision provides some reassurance that, at least in the Illinois courts, an employer must have more than its own speculation or “information and belief” that the employee engaged in wrongful conduct before doing so.

Worker Fired for Working Too Hard, Vindicated by Illinois Courts

Kate Sedey — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:54:12 GMT

After ten years of successful employment, Sharon Smiley was fired from her job as a receptionist for a local real estate agency, incredibly, for working too hard. Her workload had become increasingly heavy and, as a result, she decided to work through her lunch break. She knew her employer’s policy required that she clock out for lunch and so she did. Reasonably believing, however, that once she clocked out what she did with her time was her business, she sat at her desk and continued to work on a special project a supervisor had assigned her that morning. She had not planned on eating, and thought she would use her time to get the project done.

Ms. Smiley’s supervisor asked her to leave her desk but Ms. Smiley refused, explaining that she knew she could not eat her lunch at her desk, but she was not eating. Ultimately, the company terminated Ms. Smiley’s employment for insubordination and contested her right to obtain unemployment benefits.

The Illinois Department of Employment Security sided with the employer and held that Ms. Smiley’s insubordination amounted to misconduct, denying Ms. Smiley benefits. Representing herself, she appealed that decision three different times internally, but was ultimately unsuccessful.

Finally, Ms. Smiley appealed her case to the Circuit Court of Cook County, which overturned the decision denying her benefits and, in January of 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court for the First District affirmed that decision. The Courts’ decisions confirmed what the rest of the world knows is basic common sense – attempting to work through lunch, even if in violation of company policy, is not willful or wanton misconduct indicating a disregard for the employer’s interests.

While I understand that Illinois is an at-will employment state and that the employer was allowed to terminate Ms. Smiley’s employment for any reason at all (so long as that reason was not discriminatory or otherwise unlawful), the notion that an employer would terminate a long-term, hard-working employee for attempting to go above and beyond by completing a project on her own time really angers me. But the fact that her employer chose to contest her right to unemployment benefits after it terminated her for working too hard simply shocks the conscience – especially given the economic climate of the last few years and the dearth of employment opportunities out there.

My hat’s off to Sharon Smiley for having the courage and conviction to call her employer on its wrong-minded efforts to deny her benefits. Congratulations on a hard-fought win!

Supreme Court Upholds So-Called "Ministerial Exception" - Narrowing the Rights of Employees of Religious Institutions to be Free From Discrimination

Kate Sedey — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:23:46 GMT

For the full story, view the following link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-01-11/supreme-court-job-bias/52498914/1

Kristin Case and Kate Sedey Voted "Rising Stars" amongst Illinois' Super Lawyers!

Kate Sedey — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:14:19 GMT

Kristin Case, the Principal of The Case Law Firm, and Kate Sedey, one of her Associates, have both been voted "Rising Stars" by Illinois' Super Lawyers Association. This accolade indicates that they were both nominated by their peers in the legal and/or judicial community as standing out amongst the crowd of practitioners. Ms. Case was rated a Rising Star for her work in the Employment and Labor field, while Ms. Sedey was rated a Rising Star amongst employee-side Employment Litigation attorneys. This is Ms. Case's third year being voted a Rising Star and Ms. Sedey's first. To view their Super Lawyer profiles, please visit the following links:

http://www.superlawyers.com/illinois/lawyer/Kristin-M-Case/cfd6bfb4-5d4d-42af-bff3-4eed18b39076.html
http://www.superlawyers.com/illinois/lawyer/Kate-Sedey/fe6951ed-193d-4420-b053-84030edb9a7c.html

To read more about the Super Lawyers organization or the Rising Star selection process, please go to:

http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html

If At First You Don't Succeed....

Kate Sedey — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:52:39 GMT

After seeing their nation-wide gender discrimination class action dismissed by the Supreme Court of the United States, the Wal-Mart Plaintiffs did not just throw up their hands and concede defeat. Instead, they've decided that if the highest court will not allow them to proceed as one large nation-wide class, that they will simply have to enforce their rights to be given the same terms and conditions of employment as men in smaller classes representing regions, districts, and states.

Click on the link below to read about their plans to file "an armada of lawsuits" across the country and make sure that Wal-Mart and corporations across America hear their message - that women will not tolerate discrimination in the workplace!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/business/women-file-new-class-action-bias-case-against-wal-mart.html?ref=jobs

Kate Sedey

The Case Law Firm, LLC

250 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 230

Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 920-0400
ksedey@thecaselawfirm.com

IRS Announces New Program Addressing Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors

Kate Sedey — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:56:21 GMT

The IRS has recently implemented a program called the “Voluntary Classification Settlement Program” (“VCSP”). The program allows eligible employers to pay a small sum in order to obtain partial relief from federal employment taxes for previous mischaracterizations of workers as “independent contractors” when such individuals should have received classification as “employees.” The announcement of this program undoubtedly marks a positive development for employers who have engaged in this type of mischaracterization and who now wish to reduce their tax liability and avoid IRS audits. However, from an employee perspective, the fact that this sort of misclassification remains so frequent and widespread that the IRS has found a need for such a program in the first place educes a timeless question in employment law: why does the distinction between “independent contractor” versus “employee” even matter?

The implications of whether you constitute an “employee” versus an “independent contractor” are immense. Namely, only qualified “employees” are entitled to statutory protection under such legislation as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act, the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

Each statute has its own definition of qualified “employee.” In general, the employer’s decision to simply label an individual as an “employee” or “independent contractor” will not serve as the dispositive factor for determining that individual’s employment status. Instead, courts use a number of different tests depending on the particular statute at issue to determine whether someone meets the precise, legal definition of “employee.” Each of these tests relies on a variety of factors. However, an employer’s decision to label someone as an “independent contractor” can indeed impose practical and legal hurdles for an individual attempting to gain protection under an employment statute. In short, the determination of whether someone constitutes an “employee” or an “independent contractor” can be a complex and nuanced exercise. Nonetheless, qualifying as an “employee” under a particular statute can often mean the difference between having legal recourse against your employer and having none. Hence, the distinction between “independent contractor” versus “employee” matters a great deal. The emergence of the IRS’s VCSP program stands as yet another reminder of that fact.

Stop Discrimination Against the Unemployed!

Kate Sedey — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 20:26:41 GMT

As appalling as it may be, a shocking number of employers these days are publishing job listings with the caveat that the unemployed need not apply. This is so backwards and plain old wrong that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it. We are currently facing one of the worst economies this country has ever seen and there is a glut of talented, intelligent, ambitious individuals without jobs who are looking for work.  And yet, for some unfathomable reason, many employers have simply written them off as undesirable employees.

Some states, including New Jersey, have passed legislation making this type of discrimination unlawful. Unfortunately, Illinois is not one of them. Our own state recently failed to pass a pending bill that would address this very issue.

If you want to show your support for a bill that tells employers that they cannot discriminate against the unemployed, please click on the link below and sign your name to the petition.  It's important that your legislators hear your voice!

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/monster_ads/index2.html?rc=paste1&r_by=26253-1404266-VupAlix

Happy Employees

Kristin Case — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:21:18 GMT

I passed a billboard the other day which said, "The best employee benefit is a happy employee." I can't remember what company adopted this slogan but I can tell you that I know this to be unequivocally true. Our next few blog posts will cover what we have found to be the top five keys to employee happiness.

One: Trust

I and the people in our office spend all day, every day, talking with employees, former employees or people who wish they were someone's employee and we hear plenty about what employees want, what infuriates them and what makes them happy.

Surprisingly, money is rarely even at the top of the list. What we find employees want, more than anything, whether they are waitresses or executives, is to be treated like trusted competent individuals. Contrary to many employer's beliefs, employees are not all idiots, are not out to cheat them or to find ways to somehow undermine their profits. They don't need to be watched liked children and monitored like prisoners. Just tell them what you want them to do, tell them that you believe they can do it and then let them do it. There are few things more demeaning than being micromanaged. If they fail, kindly correct them. If they continue to fail then take action. I believe most employers would be shocked to learn that if an employee feels as if their employer has confidence in them the employee will almost always rise to the occasion. Everyone wants to feel valued.

Next up: Two: Flexibility

50 Best Books for the Unemployed

Kristin Case — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:38:45 GMT

A really good list for those who are in between jobs. Some very practical; some inspirational. indiglit.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/the-50-best-books-for-the-unemployed

Credit History Discrimination

Kristin Case — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:15:34 GMT

Given the recent tanking of our country's economy, Illinois (and a number of other states) have enacted laws which protect employees from credit history discrimination. And this makes sense given that someone with a negative credit history likely needs a job to dig out of that hole and if he or she is unable to get one a vicious cycle could ensue.

So what does the prohibition against credit history discrimination mean? Well, in Illinois it means that employers cannot inquire about or refuse to hire, fire or otherwise discriminate against workers on the basis of their credit reports.

The bill also forbids retaliation or discrimination against those who file complaints under the law. The laws provide employees with a civil right of action.

There are some industries that are exempt from this new law including but not necessarily limited to: insurance, banks and law enforcement agencies. And, of course, there is the ever-present catch-all. In this case it is for jobs in which a satisfactory credit history is an “established bona fide occupational requirement” such as jobs in which state or federal law requires bonding or in which duties include access to cash or assets valued at $2,500 or more. This catch-all is important because it could, feasibly, cover far more jobs than I believe the legislature intended to cover. Nevertheless, something is better than nothing and this law, at a minimum, will make employers think twice before making discriminatory assumptions about employees' credit histories.

An Inspiring Article About the Struggles of Coming Out in the Workplace

Kate Sedey — Tue, 17 May 2011 13:08:00 GMT

Earlier this week Rick Welts, the former Executive Vice President of the NBA and the current President and Chief Executive of the Phoenix Suns professional basketball team, opened up about his sexuality. After decades of living what the New York Times refers to as a "shadow life," he felt it was time that he told the public his biggest secret. Read the article here to learn more about the fears and struggles he faced as a homosexual in a male-dominated and quintessentially masculine workplace. The story is inspiring but also says a lot about the continuing struggle to rid our workplaces of discrimination. open to people of all sorts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/sports/basketball/nba-executive-says-he-is-gay.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=sports

Help our Firm Raise Money to Find a Cure for Breast Cancer

Kristin Case — Sun, 15 May 2011 21:42:00 GMT

This year we have decided to do more than just advocate for people with cancer in the workplace. We are putting our money (and hopefully others' money, too) where our mouths are.

The Case Law Firm has assembled a team that will be walking sixty miles over the course of three days with thousands of other women and men in the Susan B. Komen Three Day for a Cure. We hope that you will consider donating to this worthwhile cause.

If you would like to donate please go to www.The3day.org and click on Donations and then search for Team Case Law Firm.

The Firm has committed to matching every dollar donated up to $10,000. Our fundraising goal is $50,000.

If you have any questions about our walk or making a donation, please do not hesitate to call us.

Kendra Kutko, Our Law Clerk, Receives Employment Law Award!

Kristin Case — Mon, 09 May 2011 15:54:00 GMT

From the front-page of Kent Law School's Website....

http://www.kentlaw.edu/news/releases/zemm-labor-law-prize-2011.html

IIT Chicago-Kent student Kendra L. Kutko awarded the 2011 Sandra P. Zemm Labor Law Prize

CHICAGO--May 6, 2011–Kendra Kutko, a third-year student at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, has been awarded the 2011 Sandra P. Zemm Labor Law Prize. The prize was established in 2009 at Chicago-Kent by the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP to honor the memory of Sandra P. Zemm, who died in September 2008 after a lengthy battle with cancer.

Third-year student Kendra L. Kutko received the 2011 Sandra P. Zemm Labor Law Prize.

The Sandra P. Zemm Labor Law Prize is awarded annually to a third-year Chicago-Kent student in the Labor and Employment Law Certificate Program who exemplifies the qualities that Ms. Zemm possessed: "a commitment to pursue a career in labor and employment law, a pioneer spirit and willingness to take the initiative whenever possible, and a gracious and generous attitude toward helping those in need." Recipients are selected by Chicago-Kent faculty who teach the law school's program in labor and employment law.

"Kendra is a poised young lady who will do great things in the labor and employment field," said Francine Soliunas, assistant dean for strategy and student professional development and executive director of the Institute for Law and the Workplace at Chicago-Kent College of Law. "She truly epitomizes the spirit and legacy of Ms. Zemm, not only in what she has done but in the graciousness with which she has done it! She is a remarkable young woman and will truly be an asset to our profession."

Kendra Kutko earned a bachelor of science in legal studies from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kutko currently serves as a law clerk with the Case Law Firm LLC, a woman-owned, woman-run civil rights employment law firm in Chicago. In the fall of 2010, she received an Institute for Law and the Workplace scholarship. Kutko has worked on labor and employment law matters as an intern in Chicago-Kent's Employment Discrimination Clinic and as a clerk in the Law Offices of Laurie J. Wasserman. She has also served as an intern with Addis Greenberg & Schultz LLC. Kutko is a member of Chicago-Kent's Labor and Employment Law Society, the ABA Section of Labor and Employment Law and the National Employment Lawyers Association - Illinois.

A Chicago native, Sandra P. Zemm earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Illinois. She received her J.D. from Florida State University, where she served as managing editor of the law review.

Sandra Zemm joined Seyfarth Shaw in 1975 as the first female associate in the Labor and Employment practice. In 1982, Ms. Zemm became the firm's first female equity partner in Labor and Employment. Her practice concentrated on traditional labor matters, and on matters involving employment discrimination, wage-hour, and employment litigation. She negotiated collective bargaining and/or shutdown agreements with major labor unions, and represented management in more than 200 hearings before arbitrators, the National Labor Relations Board and various state labor agencies. In 2002, Ms. Zemm was elected to the American College of Labor and Employment Lawyers.

"Sandy was beloved by her colleagues and clients and respected by her opponents. She was a no-nonsense labor lawyer and an elegant, sophisticated woman at the same time. Her ability to stand up to the toughest adversaries while always carrying herself with style and grace inspired many of us who came to the firm after her," said Allegra Rich, Pro Bono and Philanthropy Partner at Seyfarth Shaw. "This award is our way of keeping her in our thoughts and honoring her legacy."

Seyfarth Shaw has over 750 attorneys located in 10 offices throughout the United States, including: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., as well as internationally in London. Seyfarth Shaw provides a broad range of legal services in the areas of labor and employment, employee benefits, litigation, corporate, and real estate. The firm's practice reflects virtually every industry and segment of the country's business and social fabric. Clients include over 300 of the Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, newspapers and other media, hotels, health care organizations, airlines and railroads. The firm also represents a number of federal, state and local governmental and educational entities.

Chicago-Kent College of Law is the law school of Illinois Institute of Technology, a private, Ph.D.-granting university with more than 7,700 students in engineering, sciences, architecture, psychology, design, humanities, business and law. With more than 1,100 students, Chicago-Kent offers full-time and part-time J.D. and LL.M. degree programs as well as joint-degree programs with other IIT units. Chicago-Kent’s Program in Labor and Employment Law allows students to specialize in the law governing the workplace.

Good News for Employees with Disability Discrimination Claims

Kristin Case — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 15:52:00 GMT

On March 24^th, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued the much anticipated final regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). In its press release, the EEOC emphasized that the purpose of these new regulations are “to simplify the determination of who has a ‘disability’ and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).”[1]

Under the ADA, an individual qualifies as “disabled” if she (a) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (b) has a record of such an impairment; or (c) is regarded as having such an impairment. The regulations have preserved this three-part definition of disability. However, as part of the effort to broaden coverage under the ADA, the ADAAA and the EEOC regulations have imposed certain noteworthy expansions to the definition’s interpretation.

For instance, the regulations state that major life activities encompass not only activities such as seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, but also activities such as the operation of major bodily functions, including functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions. The recognition of major bodily functions as “major life activities” will make it easier to find that individuals with certain types of impairments have a “disability” under the ADA. The regulations also provide examples of specific impairments that should require simple, straightforward analysis and should usually be found to constitute a disabilities under the ADA. These impairments include deafness, blindness, intellectual disability, partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.

Most importantly, as the EEOC has so aptly put it, the new regulations reflect a fundamental shift in disability discrimination analysis under the ADA: “[t]he changes to the regulations reflect changes made by the ADAAA itself, which are intended to make the primary focus of an ADA inquiry whether discrimination occurred, not whether an individual meets the definition of ‘disability.’”[2]

Although plaintiff employees still have their work cut out for them in terms of successfully litigating a disability discrimination case, the new ADAAA regulations seem to clear at least one more hurdle.

[1] www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-24-11.cfm

[2] http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/ada_qa_final_rule.cfm

EQUAL PAY DAY, April 12th

Kristin Case — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:11:00 GMT

The Average

Working Woman

EARNS JUST 77¢

TO THE AVERAGE MAN’S DOLLAR

EQUAL PAY DAY, April 12th, represents when a woman’s wages finally catches up to a man’s wages from December 31st, of the previous year. 102 days later.

EQUAL WORK

DESERVES

EQUAL WAGES!

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

12:00 NOON - DALEY CENTER PLAZA

Clark and Washington, Chicago

HEAR PROMINENT EQUAL PAY ADVOCATES:

 EVELYN MURPHY THE WAGE PROJECT

 DORIS MOY ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

To RSVP: http://svy.mk/EqualPayDay

For more info: Contact Barb Yong at 312-696-2034 or

Blyong@golanchristie.com

SPONSORED BY:

Illinois Federation of Business and Professional Women; Women Employed; Mujeres Latinas en Accion; AAUW Chicago Illinois; Chicago Commission on Human Relations Advisory Council on Women; Chicago NOW; Chicago Women in Trades; Cook County Commission on Women’s Issues; EEOC; Illinois Department of Human Rights; NELA-IL; Northwestern University School of Law, Women's Leadership Coalition; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Women’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor; YWCA Metropolitan Chicago

Vote YES on SB 128 - Healthy Workplace Act - Senator Sandoval

Kristin Case — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 17:36:00 GMT

SB 128 - Healthy Workplace Act - Senator Sandoval

This bill would provide for paid sick leave for Illinois workers.

Requires an employer to provide an employee up to 7 sick days with pay during each 12-month period. Provides that an employee may use the sick days care for physical or mental illness, injury, medical condition, professional medical diagnosis or care, or a medical appointment of the employee or a family member.

PLEASE CALL members of the Senate Labor Committee TODAY and urge them to VOTE YES on SB 128. This bill will be up for a vote tomorrow.

Call the switchboard at 217/782-2000 and ask for a Senator's office.

You can call any and all members of the Committee and leave your message with their staff: