| Issues and Answers | ||
| Tips for hiring seasonal workers | |||
|
| |||
|
| Test Your Human Resources Knowledge | ||
|
| Labor Law Journal Submissions | ||
|
| Human Resources Links | ||
|
| Labor Arbitrators' Awards and Biographies | ||
U.S. Master™ Wage-Hour Guide, 2009 Edition 
Presents a first approach to the broad and complex controls under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and other statutes regulating employee wages and hours.
Unlike recent court decisions, which have held that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (FPA) extends the limitations period of time-barred discrete adverse employment actions (i.e., promotion or tenure denials) that continue to affect an employee’s compensation, a federal district court in Pennsylvania concluded that only one of a female employee’s claims in a series of alleged Title VII sex-based promotion denials was properly before the court. The employee asserted that she was denied numerous promotions in her company’s market department until she was discharged. (Rowland v Certainteed Corp, DPa, 92 EPD ¶43,569)
“A failure-to-promote claim divorced from a discriminatory compensation claim, does not fall within the purview of that newly enacted law,” held the court, finding that the FPA did not help the employee because she “pressed no discriminatory compensation claim” with respect to her untimely failure to promote claims. The court also rejected the employee’s argument that she should be allowed to pursue all of her failure-to-promote claims, including those outside the applicable statute of limitations period, because she had alleged “a continuing pattern of violations.” The limitations period for discrete employment actions, like promotion denials, run separately, and are subject to the 300-day statute of limitations. On the merits, the court held that triable issues did exist as to whether her one timely non-promotion claim and discharge were the result of sex bias. Besides presenting sufficient evidence undercutting her employer’s claim that she lacked the experience to be promoted, the court declined a determination of whether her job was eliminated in order to reduce costs since the company increased costs almost immediately after firing her.
For more information on this and other topics, consult CCH Employment Practices Guide or CCH Labor Relations.
Visit our News Library to read more news stories.
©2009, CCH. All Rights Reserved.
