Denver Personal Injury Lawyer - Employment Law

Idaho mine accident causes man to lose arm

Staff Writer — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:39:40 GMT

Monday morning worksite accident at a phosphate mine in southeast Idaho caused a man to lose his harm, according to a report from the Associated Press.

The victim of the accident is currently in a Salt Lake City hospital intensive care unit as physicians attempt to save his leg. The accident is being investigated by the Mine Safety Health Administration.

The Smoky Canyon Mine excavates more than 1.5 million tons of phosphate rock, a substance used to make fertilizer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Do You Know? The Use of Polygraphs for Employees

Staff Writer — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:36:54 GMT

Employers are often tempted to ask an employee to take a lie detector test if the employer believes that an employee has stolen the employer's property. However, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, a federal law found at 29 U.S.C. Â§ 2001-2009, restricts an employer's use of polygraphs, and provides remedies for a violation of the restrictions regarding the use of lie detector tests.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Employer's Discriminatory Intent

Staff Writer — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:54:09 GMT

If an employer is accused of discriminating in violation of Title VII, a powerful source of adverse testimony can come from ex-employees. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has long held that "the testimony of other employees about their treatment by the defendant is relevant to the issue of the employer's discriminatory intent." Spulak v. K Mart Corp., 894 F.2d 1150, 1156 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Atchley v. Nordam Group, Inc., 180 F.3d 1143, 1149 (10th Cir. 1999). A plaintiff claiming discrimination or an employer seeking to avoid liability are well advised to look for such evidence and prepare to use it in the most effective way.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Equal Pay Act Violation

Staff Writer — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:51:39 GMT

An employer accused of an Equal Pay Act violation may be held liable, without a showing of intent. If an employer pays persons of different sex differently and is alleged to have done so on the basis of sex, the employer must prove one of the following: 1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a pay system based on quantity or quality of output; (4) a disparity based on any factor other than sex. Failure to carry the burden of proof can subject the employer to liability under the EPA, regardless of intent.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Case of Pay Discrimination

Staff Writer — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:48:51 GMT

In Mickelson v. New York Life Insurance Co., the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of an employee who claimed that she had been discriminated against with respect to pay. The Court noted that there are two ways a plaintiff can proceed on a claim of salary discrimination: on a theory of intentional discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, or on a theory of wage discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of the Equal Pay Act. The difference between these two claims is that a plaintiff has to show intent under the Title VII claim, but only different rates of pay to different genders under the EPA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Subjective Hiring or Promotion Criteria

Staff Writer — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:40:45 GMT

An employer can use objective criteria or subjective criteria to determine whom to employ or promote or terminate. An employee's failure to meet the objective criteria generally terminates claims of discrimination and can result in summary dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. However, the failure to meet subjective criteria is generally not fatal to the plaintiff's claims. In such a case, the jury or judge is free to consider the employer's subjective hiring or promotion criteria in the mix of plaintiff's circumstantial evidence of discrimination, but is not required to accept the employer's version of its motivation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Arbitration as a Solution

Staff Writer — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:13:03 GMT

In Hollern v. Wachovia Sec., Inc., No. 05-1253, 05-1300 (10th Cir. August 17, 2006), the 10th Circuit reversed a district court's order setting aside an award of attorney fees entered in an arbitration. The Court held that the arbitrators did not act wrongfully in making this award. Arbitration has taken the place of traditional trials, and it can provide swift relief or it can create insurmountable problems. If you have questions about arbitration or your rights, consult a qualified attorney.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Age Discrimination Decision against Wal-Mart/Sam's Club

Staff Writer — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:38:00 GMT

In a recent decision from the 10th Circuit, the Court ruled against Wal-Mart/Sam's Club, and affirmed a jury's verdict finding that the Company had engaged in age discrimination by failing to promote. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, known as ADEA, makes it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C. Â§ 623(a)(1).

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Do You KNow? Colorado Law and Non-Compete Agreements

Staff Writer — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:35:53 GMT

Colorado law provides that a non-compete agreement is considered void (of no effect) unless it falls within one of four statutory criteria. This is because Colorado deems the employee's right to work as being the most important interest, unless the employer demonstrates that a restrictive covenant is both necessary and no broader than necessary. A non-compete agreement that falls within one of the four statutory categories must also be reasonable in terms of geographic scope and duration. If you have questions about a non-compete agreement, you should consult an attorney experienced in dealing with non-compete agreements.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer

Do You Know? Discrimination Based on Religion is Forbidden

Staff Writer — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:30:41 GMT

Title VII expressly forbids discrimination based on religion. The term "religion" can include a belief system, religious observance or religious practice. It can also include moral beliefs that have the weight of a traditional religious view. Generally, employers must make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of their employees, unless it would cause undue hardship on the employer. If you have questions about religious discrimination, you should consult an attorney experienced in handling religious discrimination cases.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Staff Writer