In April, we reported on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, which held that sex-discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Like the California federal trial court in Videckis v. Pepperdine University, the

2A couple of years ago we blogged about Amicus Curiae briefs, their role in the appellate law, and how they can benefit California’s employers. Since our original post, we witnessed a number of cases in which Amicus Curiae briefs played a significant role in landmark cases.  Such briefs continue to be an important way for

Security-Check.jpgThis blog post has by James E. Oldendorph Jr.

On March 3, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which questions whether employees of companies such as Amazon.com, and companies that provide staffing services to Amazon.com, must be paid for time spent going through security screenings similar to those found in airports,

US Supreme Court_2.jpgPublic agency officials and employees may read newspaper articles about recently decided landmark cases in public sector labor and employment law, and may feel relief, anger, surprise, or vindication in the result.  This is especially true if the decision impacts how the agency functions on a day-to-day basis.  These same individuals may also find developing

US Supreme Court.jpg

This guest post was authored by Heather L. DeBlanc

This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius addressing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 The Court upheld, in a 5 to 4 ruling, the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the ACA.