Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- AALS 1999 conference (1)
- Affirmative action (1)
- American Association of Law Schools (1)
- Anti-discrimination (1)
- Bodily injury (1)
-
- Carrier (1)
- Construing (1)
- Coverage (1)
- Coverage disputes (1)
- Discrimination claims (1)
- Douglas Scherer (1)
- EEOC (1)
- ERISA (1)
- Employee benefits (1)
- Employer's liability (1)
- Employment claims (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Employment litigation (1)
- Equal Employment Opportunity (1)
- Gender (1)
- Harassment (1)
- Insurance coverage (1)
- Insurance industry's (1)
- Insurance law (1)
- Insurance policies (1)
- Insured (1)
- Insurer (1)
- Intersectional theory (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
Proceedings Of The 1999 Annual Meeting, Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law: Is There A Disconnect Between Eeo Law And The Workplace?, Douglas D. Scherer, James C. Sharf, Richard T. Seymour, Maria O'Brien Hylton, Paulette Caldwell
Proceedings Of The 1999 Annual Meeting, Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law: Is There A Disconnect Between Eeo Law And The Workplace?, Douglas D. Scherer, James C. Sharf, Richard T. Seymour, Maria O'Brien Hylton, Paulette Caldwell
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
Judge-Made Insurance That Was Not On The Menu: Schmidt V. Smith And The Confluence Of Text, Expectation, And Public Policy In The Realm Of Employment Practices Liability, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Judge-Made Insurance That Was Not On The Menu: Schmidt V. Smith And The Confluence Of Text, Expectation, And Public Policy In The Realm Of Employment Practices Liability, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
In Schmidt v. Smith, the New Jersey Supreme Court caught more than a few observers by surprise. New Jersey courts have generally issued opinions regarded as pro-claimant and pro-policyholders. But everyone's taste for recompense and coverage has limits. In Schmidt, the court exceeded those limits for many observers by holding that despite what it regarded as clear contract language in an exclusion, an insurer providing Employers’ Liability (“EL”) coverage along with Workers' Compensation (“WC”) insurance for the employer was required to provide coverage in a case of blatant sexual harassment bordering on criminal assault. In doing so, the Schmidt court, …