AAUW Naperville hosts program and movie on paid leave in Illinois May 15 Robert Bruno, professor and director of the University of Illinois Labor Education Program
Updated 5/7/2021 8:56 PM
The United States is the only industrialized country without a federal paid leave law. That s right, zero weeks of paid leave is what the U.S.A. offers in comparison to other countries, some of which offer up to a year of paid leave.
While many may be familiar with the Family Medical Leave Act, which is unpaid, and the use of paid sick days for our own sickness or after childbirth, most workers do not have access to pay when they are not at work for their own illness, after childbirth or adoption, after their partner has a child, or when they must care for a family member.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The federal appeals court that has jurisdiction over New York employers recently issued a decision holding that a plaintiff must plausibly allege “willfulness” to secure the benefit of the longer three-year limitations period for willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The decision means that, at the pleadings stage, a plaintiff cannot merely pepper their complaint with the word “willfulness” to obtain the exception – they must actually allege facts that create a plausible inference of willful violation of the statute. The April 27 decision from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Legal Disclaimer
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Health
your username
May 4, 2021
The Eighth Circuit on Tuesday affirmed summary judgment for Cooperative Response Center Inc. (CRC), the defendant in a case brought by a former employee who alleged that she was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
Previously, the District of Minnesota granted summary judgment to CRC, a security and medical alarm services company, dismissing all the claims by plaintiff Tori Evans. Reportedly, Evans argued not only that CRC’s termination of her was in violation of the ADA, but that the company’s reasoning for terminating her that she violated the employer’s attendance policy was a pretext for disability discrimination. The district court sided with CRC, finding that its attendance policy clearly articulates what it expects of employees and Evans’ attendance did not meet the standard.