No Loss of Retirement for Off-duty Illegal Act

A former corrections officer arrested for distribution a pain killer should not be denied a disability retirement because of this off-duty wrongdoing, as per the Appellate Court in Coughlin v Board of Trustees, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System.  Here, the scope of the wrongdoing was limited—two tablets to a private individual in a private car in a commercial parking lot.  The connection of this off-duty illegal act to the pension requirements was improper.

Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: EMP--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: empl--

--Tagged under: employment claim--

--Tagged under: empl--

--Tagged under: employment issue--

--Tagged under: retirement--

--Tagged under: labor--

--Tagged under: labor law--

--Tagged under: illegal act--

--Tagged under: criminal act--

--Tagged under: off duty actions--

Nursing mothers protected at work by amendment to Fair Labor Standards Act.

In a little discussed provision of the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010, employers are required to give nursing mothers both “a reasonable break time… to express breast milk for her nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth,” and “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion… which may be used… to express breast milk.”

Although passed as part of the Health Care Act, the “Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers” law is an amendment to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. As such, it applies to all employers engaged in interstate commerce of at least $500,000 per year. The law provides an exemption for employers of under 50 employees who can show that the requirements will impose an undue hardship on the business.

This law is great news for nursing mothers who need to work but want to continue to breast-feed their babies. In passing the new provision Congress explicitly recognized both the health benefits of breast feeding children, and how inappropriate and unsanitary it is to compel nursing mothers to express milk in the bathroom.

Interestingly, the law specifies giving reasonable break time to “express breast milk” but has no provision for actually nursing a baby during work hours. I sense a test case on the horizon!

C. Megan Oltman, Esq.

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

 

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: labor law--

--Tagged under: labor--

--Tagged under: breast feeding--

--Tagged under: reasonable break time for nursing mothers--

--Tagged under: Fair Labor Standards Act--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: Health Care Act of 2010--

Over 600 NLRB Cases were Wrongly Decided, says U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) did not have the authority to issue over 600 decisions it issued in the last 2 years.  The NLRB has had three vacancies on its five member panel for two years, and requires a working group of three members to issue decisions. A quorum of two in a working group can issue a decision, but not, the Supreme Court holds, if they are in fact the only two sitting members of the NLRB. The initial effect of this ruling in the case of New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board will be to send approximately 75 to 80 lower court cases challenging the legitimacy of two-member board decisions back to the NLRB. In addition, cases where the Board ordered an employee reinstated may result in new firings if those reinstatement decisions are all overturned.

- C. Megan Oltman  

Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.

Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C.  assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.

--Tagged under: labor--

--Tagged under: labor law--

--Tagged under: National Labor Relations Board--

--Tagged under: U.S. Supreme Court--

--Tagged under: employment law--

FMLA Leave: an Employee’s Word Counts!

In a recent decision, the United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that in determining whether an employee was sufficiently incapacitated to warrant protecting her under the Federal Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the employee’s own word as to her illness was enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact. In Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Physicians, the 3rd Circuit held that an employee who had a doctor’s certification of illness for part of her absence, and her own testimony that she was not well enough to return to work for the remainder of her absence, was protected from retaliation under the FMLA.

FMLA provides that for employers of 50 persons or more, employees are entitled to up to 12 work-weeks per year of unpaid leave to care for an ill family member or for themselves when they are ill. Significantly, FMLA provides that employees cannot be fired, disciplined or have adverse action taken against them due to taking FMLA leave. In Scharr the plaintiff had a doctor’s note for two days of leave and stayed home a third day without any medical documentation because she did not feel she was yet well enough to return to work. The 3rd Circuit reversed the District Court and held that lay testimony, in other words the employee’s own testimony as to his or her medical condition, in combination with medical testimony, could establish that the illness was serious enough to justify the leave. The Court declined to go as far as have the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which find that lay testimony may be sufficient all by itself to establish the seriousness of the illness for FMLA purposes.

In practical terms, this means that the burden on employees of establishing the need for FMLA leave has been lowered in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. Significantly, all the U.S. Circuits that have dealt with this question have allowed lay testimony, at least in combination with medical testimony: the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits. This trend could make it easier for employees with partial, periodic disabilities to take the leave they need without a heavy burden of medical certification.

C. Megan Oltman

--Tagged under: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals--

--Tagged under: FMLA--

--Tagged under: Family Medical Leave Act--

--Tagged under: United States Court of Appeals--

--Tagged under: disability--

--Tagged under: employ--

--Tagged under: employment--

--Tagged under: employment law--

--Tagged under: labor law--

Theme created by: Roy David Farber and Hunson. Powered By: Tumblr...
1 of 1