Uncategorized

The disturbing answer, shown by a recent Virginia Supreme Court decision, is yes.  The federal employment discrimination laws generally do not allow suits against supervisors and managers for personnel choices they make for the company.  Despite this protection, however, other federal and state employment laws allow supervisors to be held liable for management decisions in some instances.  This is shown by the Virginia Supreme Court’s recent decision extending wrongful discharge liability to supervisors and individual…

When a commercial vehicle driver was fired after having a mini stroke, a federal court determined that administrative requirements applied to his claim that he had not satisfied, but still allowed him to proceed.  The plaintiff worked for a freight distribution company as a commercial driver, and suffered a mini stroke at work.  After he obtained treatment, the plaintiff’s doctors cleared him to return to work, but the Company required the plaintiff to be examined

In Burgess v. Bowen, Civil Action No. 1:09cv763 (JCC) (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2012), an African American female sued claiming racial discrimination and retaliation after she was terminated from her executive-level position at a federal agency.  The plaintiff served as the Assistant Inspector General for Public Affairs (“AIG-PA”) within the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (the “Agency”).  The Agency discharged her as part of a reorganization despite her claim that she

A federal court has decided that a female, African American employee did not have a hostile work environment claim against her employer, despite the fact that a white male supervisor pinned her to a desk.  The case is Conyers v. Virginia Housing Development Authority, Civil Action No. 3:12cv458-JRS (E.D. Va. Sep. 15, 2012).  The Court held that the employee may have employment discrimination and retaliation claims against her employer, but that her employment conditions were

Three individuals entered into a covenant not to compete with a tax preparation franchisor, and promised not to compete within 25 miles of the franchisor’s business, for a period of two-years after termination.  Despite the fact that the contract was terminated in  August 2010, a recent case extended the covenant not to compete (commonly referred to as a “non-compete”) until November 2, 2013, which is over three years after the contract’s termination.  How can this