Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Labor & Employment Law, W. Melvin Haas Iii, William M. Clifton Iii, W. Jonathan Martin Ii, Alyssa K. Peters

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys revisions to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) and decisions interpreting Georgia law from June 1, 2015 to May 31, 2016 that affect labor and employment relations for Georgia employers.

Employment Discrimination, Peter Reed Corbin, John E. Duvall

Mercer Law Review

Clearly the most significant case handed down during the 2015 survey period was the March 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. In Young, the Supreme Court decided that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) does, in fact, require employers to offer workplace accommodations to pregnant employees in order to remain on the job. This case has almost certainly required a host of employers to review and probably revise the leave policies they had in place prior to the decision being handed down. Otherwise, the 2015 survey period was a busy, …

Labor And Employment Law, W. Jonathan Martin Ii, F. Damon Kitchen, Gary R. Wheeler

Mercer Law Review

This Article surveys the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit precedent from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015. The following is a discussion of those opinions.

An Onerous Burden: The Impact Of Nassar Upon Mcdonnell Douglas In The Eleventh Circuit, Alec Chappell

Mercer Law Review

Following a flood of employment discrimination and retaliation cases, the United States Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar announced that an employee alleging retaliation must prove that the employer's motive to retaliate constituted a "but for" cause of the actions adverse to the employee. In addition to creating an awkward and unprecedented union of employment law and traditional tort principles of causation,' this decision upended the conventional application of the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and left the lower courts to pick up the pieces. ...

This Comment explores the responses …

Contraceptive Coverage Falls, No More: Using Rfra To Limit The Scope Of Religious Challenges To The Aca's Contraceptive Mandate, M. Catherine Norman

Mercer Law Review

Contraceptive coverage is a required part of all new insurance plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), but many employers' are exempt from this requirement. Other employers have challenged the contraceptive requirement on religious grounds. In East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held as follows: (1) the plaintiffs are either automatically exempt from the contraceptive-coverage mandate or eligible for accommodation upon application; (2) the challenged provisions do not violate rights to religious freedom under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA); (3) RFRA applies only to …