Services
    Practice Groups
  • Antitrust Counseling & Litigation
  • Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Creditors’ Rights
  • Capital Markets & Securities
  • Commercial Transactions
  • Corporate & Transactional
  • Corporate Compliance & Governance
  • Data Security & Privacy
  • Employee Benefits
  • Environmental
  • Executive Compensation
  • Finance
  • Franchising
  • Immigration
  • Insurance Recovery
  • Intellectual Property
  • International
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation, Trials & Appeals
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Personal Injury & Products Liability
  • Public Finance
  • Public Law
  • Real Estate
  • Safety & Health – OSHA/MSHA
  • Tax
    Industries
  • Aviation
  • Banking & Financial Services
  • Cable Television, Internet & Media
  • Commercial & Resort Real Estate
  • Construction
  • Food & Beverage
  • Golf, Resorts & Private Clubs
  • Government Contracts
  • Healthcare
  • Media & Publishing
  • Nonprofit & Tax-Exempt Organizations
  • Oil & Gas, Energy & Natural Resources
  • Religious Organizations
  • Space Law
  • Sports Law
  • Telecommunications
    Private Client
  • Criminal Defense/White Collar Defense
  • Estate & Tax Planning
  • Family Law
  • Farm & Ranch
  • Privately Held Businesses
  • Residential Purchases, Sales & Construction
  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Current News and Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • About the Firm Page
    • History
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Careers at Sherman & Howard
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
    • Law Students
  • Affiliations
    • Interlaw
  • Offices
  • Contact
  • Menu

  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Current News and Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • About the Firm Page
    • History
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Careers at Sherman & Howard
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
    • Law Students
  • Affiliations
    • Interlaw
  • Offices
  • Contact
  • Search Professionals
    • Name
    • Service
        Practice Groups
      • Antitrust Counseling & Litigation
      • Bankruptcy, Insolvency & Creditors’ Rights
      • Capital Markets & Securities
      • Commercial Transactions
      • Corporate & Transactional
      • Corporate Compliance & Governance
      • Data Security & Privacy
      • Employee Benefits
      • Environmental
      • Executive Compensation
      • Finance
      • Franchising
      • Immigration
      • Insurance Recovery
      • Intellectual Property
      • International
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation, Trials & Appeals
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Personal Injury & Products Liability
      • Public Finance
      • Public Law
      • Real Estate
      • Safety & Health – OSHA/MSHA
      • Tax
        Industries
      • Aviation
      • Banking & Financial Services
      • Cable Television, Internet & Media
      • Commercial & Resort Real Estate
      • Construction
      • Food & Beverage
      • Golf, Resorts & Private Clubs
      • Government Contracts
      • Healthcare
      • Media & Publishing
      • Nonprofit & Tax-Exempt Organizations
      • Oil & Gas, Energy & Natural Resources
      • Religious Organizations
      • Space Law
      • Sports Law
      • Telecommunications
        Private Client
      • Criminal Defense/White Collar Defense
      • Estate & Tax Planning
      • Family Law
      • Farm & Ranch
      • Privately Held Businesses
      • Residential Purchases, Sales & Construction
    • Office
      • Albuquerque
      • Aspen
      • Colorado Springs
      • Denver
      • Las Vegas
      • Phoenix
      • Reno
      • Scottsdale
      • St. Louis
      • Steamboat Springs
    • Title
      • Associate
      • Member
      • Paralegal
  • Professionals

Monthly Archives: April 2017

College Athletes (Still) Not Employees

By Lindsay Hesketh The District Court for the Northern District of California has weighed in on whether student athletes are “employees” under the law.  On April 25, 2017, the Court dismissed a proposed class action brought by a former University…
Read More

2017-04-28T15:50:26-06:00

Posted on April 28, 2017

By Lindsay Hesketh

The District Court for the Northern District of California has weighed in on whether student athletes are “employees” under the law.  On April 25, 2017, the Court dismissed a proposed class action brought by a former University of Southern California football player.  The suit was against the NCAA and PAC-12 Conference for violations of the FLSA and California Labor Code.

In dismissing the claim, the Court relied in part on the Seventh Circuit’s 2016 decision holding former track and field student athletes were not employees. Here, the plaintiff argued college football is different from track and field because football brings in more revenue.  No luck.  Without addressing other policy implications, the Court declined to draw a line between revenue-generating and non-revenue-generating college sports. The Court also rejected the athlete’s comparison of college athletics to work-study programs, noting sports exist for the primary benefit of the students and not the school.

This is only the latest in the pay-for-play college athlete saga.  Stand by.

Read the full decision: Dawson v. NCAA, et al., Case No. 16-cv-05487-RS (N.D. Cal. April 25, 2017).

Posted in FLSA, Wage & Hour | Tagged College Football, FLSA, NCAA

Social Media Showdown II

By Bill Wright TheBlaze, Inc. and Glenn Beck (collectively “TBI”) have squared off against Tomi Lahren over a Facebook page. As reported earlier, Lahren sued TBI, claiming among other things, that they were blocking her access to social media.  TBI…
Read More

2017-04-18T09:24:05-06:00

Posted on April 18, 2017

By Bill Wright

TheBlaze, Inc. and Glenn Beck (collectively “TBI”) have squared off against Tomi Lahren over a Facebook page. As reported earlier, Lahren sued TBI, claiming among other things, that they were blocking her access to social media.  TBI has responded with a counterclaim against Lahren.

TBI asserts that they are in full compliance with Lahren’s employment agreement: they continue to pay her until her contract expires in September; they just are not broadcasting her opinions.  Lahren, they say, is in breach of the same agreement because she has made unauthorized, public disclosures about TBI and because she has made (and is scheduled to make) personal appearances without TBI’s permission (as required by the contract).

As for the Facebook page, TBI declares that it created, owns and administers the Facebook page; that Lahren, and other TBI employees, have editorial rights for the page; and that TBI merely won’t let her post statements on the page that violate her contract.  The unspoken issue, of course, is what happens to the 4 million people who “like” her posts on the page.  Should TBI have to transfer rights to the page so followers don’t have to go look for Lahren’s personal social media sites?

What do you think?  It’s her name and image on the page, but TBI contracted for the rights.

Posted in Social Media

Suspension Not Materially Adverse

By Bill Wright A retaliation claim under Title VII requires proof of a “materially adverse action.”  Short of discharge, what could be more materially adverse than a suspension?  The Fifth Circuit Court recently ruled that even a suspension is not…
Read More

2017-04-12T12:51:12-06:00

Posted on April 12, 2017

By Bill Wright

A retaliation claim under Title VII requires proof of a “materially adverse action.”  Short of discharge, what could be more materially adverse than a suspension?  The Fifth Circuit Court recently ruled that even a suspension is not always materially adverse.  The plaintiff will have to show that the suspension caused “physical, emotional, and economic burdens.”  Cabral v. Brennan, No. 16-50661 (5th Cir. April 10, 2017).

Don’t try this at home.  An employee might well believe any suspension to be stressful, depressing, and/or a threat to paying the rent.  Here the plaintiff presented no testimony or other evidence that he was unhappy to be off work for a couple of days.

Posted in Discrimination, Retaliation, Title VII | Tagged fifth circuit, Retaliation, suspend, Title VII

Social Media Showdown

By Bill Wright Commentator and writer Tomi Lahren has filed suit in Dallas County, Texas, against Glenn Beck and TheBlaze, Inc. (“TBI”). Judging from the complaint, the issues include the defendants’ continuing exercise of control over a Facebook account. Lahren…
Read More

2017-04-11T09:49:23-06:00

Posted on April 11, 2017

By Bill Wright

Commentator and writer Tomi Lahren has filed suit in Dallas County, Texas, against Glenn Beck and TheBlaze, Inc. (“TBI”). Judging from the complaint, the issues include the defendants’ continuing exercise of control over a Facebook account.

Lahren alleges that, after expressing her personal opinions on The View, the defendants stopped producing her shows and banned her from posting to the Facebook account or other social media.  The contract attached to the complaint includes a provision that TBI had no obligation to use her material and only had to continue her Salary/Benefits. The complaint alleges that the defendants continued to pay her. Nevertheless, among other things, Lahren seeks a TRO prohibiting the defendants from interfering with her postings on any social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Does the contractual provision that TBI owns all material Lahren produces as an employee, perhaps together with the defendants’ actual administrative control over the social media accounts, give TBI the power to block Lahren’s use of existing social media accounts and her access to the millions of people who clicked to “follow” Lahren? The answer to the complaint is yet to be filed, but we’ll keep an eye out for it.

Posted in Human Resources/Employee Relations, Social Media | Tagged firing, Personal Social Media, Social Media

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Illegal

By Bill Wright The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is the first federal appellate court in the country to rule that Title VII already protects employees from discrimination because of sexual orientation. In every other case that has previously reached…
Read More

2017-04-04T17:23:53-06:00

Posted on April 4, 2017

By Bill Wright

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is the first federal appellate court in the country to rule that Title VII already protects employees from discrimination because of sexual orientation. In every other case that has previously reached a federal court of appeals, the court has ruled the employee could proceed only on the basis of a sex stereotyping claim. Employees could claim that they were discriminated against because, as men, they were not sufficiently masculine, or as women, they were not sufficiently feminine.  But employees had no claim for discrimination based on their status as homosexuals.

The Seventh Circuit took the narrowest possible path. It held that homosexuality is attraction to a person of one’s own sex and, therefore, discrimination because of sexual orientation is discrimination that only occurs because of one’s own biological sex. Or, to put it another way, sexual orientation is the sex of the person with whom the employee associates. Title VII has always made it illegal to discriminate against an employee because the employee’s friends and lovers are of a different race. Now, the same reasoning applies to sex.

The Supreme Court might yet take up this case, or another court’s ruling on the same issue. When it does, expect the argument to dwell on the Seventh Circuit’s comparison of sexual orientation discrimination to Constitutional issues the Supreme Court has already seen. Stay tuned. Hively v. Ivy Tech Comm. Col., No. 15-1720 (7th Cir. April 4, 2017).

Posted in Discrimination, Title VII | Tagged Gender Discrimination, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, sexual stereotyping

EEOC Held to Relevance Standard

By Bill Wright The Supreme Court today ruled in McLane Co. v EEOC, No. 15–1248 (April 3, 2017).  The actual issue was narrow: whether a court of appeals should substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment when deciding…
Read More

2017-04-03T09:59:51-06:00

Posted on April 3, 2017

By Bill Wright

The Supreme Court today ruled in McLane Co. v EEOC, No. 15–1248 (April 3, 2017).  The actual issue was narrow: whether a court of appeals should substitute its own judgment for the trial court’s judgment when deciding whether to enforce an EEOC subpoena. The Supreme Court answered that question: “no,” but in describing its reasons, the Court re-emphasized the standards the trial court applies. The trial court should review an EEOC subpoena to determine that the underlying Charge is valid and that the information sought will cast light on the Charge. The information sought should not be too indeterminate; the subpoena should not be issued for an improper purpose; and gathering the information should not be unduly burdensome.

In its ruling, the Court shot down several court decisions that suggested the courts should “defer” to the EEOC on what information is relevant to a Charge. Relevance is broadly construed, but the courts exercise substantive review. The EEOC does not have a free hand to collect just anything it wants.

 

Posted in EEOC, Supreme Court | Tagged EEOC, Supreme Court

Subscribe To Blog

* indicates required

Recent Posts

  • Lethal Danger Needed to Invoke Wrongful Discharge Claim
  • Proposed Replacement for Colorado Minimum Wage Order Promises Big Changes for Employers
  • OFCCP Renews Focus on Disabled Individuals, Veterans, and Military Spouses
  • EEOC Weighs In On NLRB Protections For Offensive Statements
  • Policing Gender Stereotyping

Archives

  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012

Categories

  • Accommodation
  • ADA
  • Arbitration
  • Benefits
  • Blog
  • Class Action
  • Contractors
  • Discrimination
  • DOL
  • Dukes Case
  • E-Discovery
  • EEOC
  • ERISA
  • Executive Compensation
  • False Claims Act
  • Federal Contractors
  • First Amendment
  • FLSA
  • FMLA
  • GINA
  • Harassment
  • Harassment
  • Health Care
  • Human Resources/Employee Relations
  • Immigration
  • Internal Investigations
  • Labor
  • Miscellaneous
  • NLRB
  • OHSA/Safety and Health
  • Racial Discrimination
  • Retaliation
  • Social Media
  • Supreme Court
  • Title VII
  • Trade Secrets
  • Uncategorized
  • Union Issues
  • USERRA
  • Wacky Cases
  • Wage & Hour
  • WARN
  • Whistleblower
  • Workers' Compensation
  • Workforce Reduction
  • Services
  • Professionals
  • News & Events
    • Events and Registration
    • In The Media
    • Publications & Advisories
    • Speaking Engagements
  • About the Firm
    • History
    • Interlaw
    • Inclusiveness
  • Blog
  • Careers
    • Lawyers
    • Business Professionals
  • Offices
  • Contact

Copyright 2000-2019 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map +

Email Disclaimer

Sending an email to Sherman & Howard or to one of its lawyers, paralegals, or employees does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Sherman & Howard, and the receipt of the email does not indicate Sherman & Howard’s willingness to discuss forming an attorney-client relationship with you. If you are not already a client of the firm, you should not provide us with confidential information without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide such information before we confirm that we are willing and able to consult with you about becoming a client, we may not be in a position to treat that information as confidential or privileged, and we may be able to represent a party who is adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you.

Please indicate below that you have read the foregoing notice about email communications and that you wish to send an email under the conditions we have set out above.

I have read and agree with the above disclaimer and wish to Email Sherman & Howard.

×

Email Disclaimer

Sending an email to Sherman & Howard or to one of its lawyers, paralegals, or employees does not create an attorney-client between you and Sherman & Howard, and the receipt of the email does not indicate Sherman & Howard’s willingness to discuss forming an attorney-client relationship with you. If you are not already a client of the firm, you should not provide us with confidential information without first speaking to one of our lawyers. If you provide such information before we confirm that we are willing and able to consult with you about becoming a client, we may not be in a position to treat that information as confidential or privileged, and we may be able to represent a party who is adverse to you, even if the information you submit to us could be used against you.

Please indicate below that you have read the foregoing notice about email communications and that you wish to send an email under the conditions we have set out above.

I have read and agree with the above disclaimer and wish to Email this attorney.

×