Recent News

Case Summaries

Labor & Employment Law

[09/05] Townsend v. University of Alaska
In a case interpreting the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) as applied to state employers, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) USERRA does not unequivocally abrogate states' sovereign immunity from suits by citizens in federal court; and 2) USERRA creates no cause of action against individual state employee-supervisors.

[09/05] Pachter v. Bernard Hodes Group
In a claim brought by former employee-plaintiff challenging legality of deductions under Article 6 section 193 of the New York Labor law taken by employer-defendant, decision in favor of plaintiff is reversed and remanded after answers by New York Court of Appeals to certified questions resolved the case, where: 1) because New York Labor Law Article 6, section 193 includes executives unless otherwise excluded, plaintiff is covered; however, 2) plaintiff's cause of action fails because it is undisputed that plaintiff knowingly acquiesced over a period of years to the approach used by defendant when calculating her commissions, conduct that constituted an implied agreement between parties; and 3) as an implied agreement does not violate "section 193 nor any other provision of article 6 of the Labor Law," the deductions in question did not violate that provision.

[09/04] Merritt v. United Parcel Serv.
Decision of Industrial Accident Board to terminate disability plaintiffs paid to claimant by employer is reversed where an admission by employer that claimant's disability was "on-going" was the equivalent of a judicial admission and should have been given conclusive effect.

[09/04] Smith v. US Postal Serv.
In a case alleging a violation of an employee's rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, a Merit Systems Protection Board order that petitioner was not entitled to a compensation award is vacated and remanded where the reemployment of petitioner after his military service in a part-time position requiring irregular shifts, rather than in the full-time position he should have been assigned to, deprived him of the benefit of working regular hours, and entitled him to compensation.

[08/29] Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss
In a personal-injury suit, jury finding that defendant-employer was negligent is reversed and judgment rendered that plaintiff-employee take nothing where: 1) plaintiff's injury was caused by attempting to step around a loaded cart; 2) the potential danger of doing which was commonly known; and 3) defendant therefore had no duty to warn plaintiff of any risk.

More...