Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
Employment Discrimination, Peter Reed Corbin, Richard L. Ruth
Employment Discrimination, Peter Reed Corbin, Richard L. Ruth
Mercer Law Review
The 1998 survey period presented an extremely active year in the employment discrimination arena, not only for the Eleventh Circuit, but also for the United States Supreme Court.' Three key decisions were rendered by the Supreme Court on sexual harassment and same-sex discrimination, and another decision was rendered on the arbitrability of ADA claims. Yet, ironically, in this year of inordinate Supreme Court activity in the field of labor and employment law, the Court's arbitration decision did not "live up to the hype" of being a landmark decision on the legality of mandatory predispute arbitration of statutory discrimination claims. On …
Labor Law, Stephen W. Mooney, Leigh Lawson Reeves
Labor Law, Stephen W. Mooney, Leigh Lawson Reeves
Mercer Law Review
This Article surveys the 1998 decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that addressed issues in the areas of traditional labor law. This article specifically discusses decisions by the Eleventh Circuit under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA7), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). As in the years past, the Eleventh Circuit decided several cases that involved issues of interest in the area of traditional labor law. Due to page limitations, however, this Article cannot survey every …
Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth: An Affirmative Defense Against Employer Liability For Supervisory Harassment, Joyelle K. Werner
Burlington Industries, Inc. V. Ellerth: An Affirmative Defense Against Employer Liability For Supervisory Harassment, Joyelle K. Werner
Mercer Law Review
In Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, the Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable for its supervisor's harassment that creates a hostile work environment, subject only to the affirmative defense that the employer "exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct" the harassment and that the "employee unreasonably failed to take advantage" of the employer's remedial procedure or corrective opportunities offered after the fact.