The Seventh Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs the lacked standing to sue either the NCAA or other universities, since their connection to the entities was too tenuous to be considered employment. Moreover, although the plaintiffs had standing to sue University of Pennsylvania, the District Court could properly reject the plaintiffs' claim that they were akin to "trainees" or "private-sector interns" so as to entitle them to minimum wages, since economic reality of the relationship between student athletes and their schools was one of amateurism. The Seventh Circuit also noted that Field Operations Handbook for Dept. of Labor indicated that student athletes are not employees under FSLA because they are only participating in extracurricular activities conducted primarily for their own benefit.
Plaintiffs, former track and field athletes enrolled at University of Pennsylvania, sued the NCAA alleging that their participation as student athletes on track and field team established their employee status at school so as to entitle them to minimum wages under Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA). Berger v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, No. 16-1558 (7th Cir. December 5, 2016). The District Court dismissed the claim for failure to state valid cause of action. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Seventh Circuit agreed that the plaintiffs the lacked standing to sue either the NCAA or other universities, since their connection to the entities was too tenuous to be considered employment. Moreover, although the plaintiffs had standing to sue University of Pennsylvania, the District Court could properly reject the plaintiffs' claim that they were akin to "trainees" or "private-sector interns" so as to entitle them to minimum wages, since economic reality of the relationship between student athletes and their schools was one of amateurism. The Seventh Circuit also noted that Field Operations Handbook for Dept. of Labor indicated that student athletes are not employees under FSLA because they are only participating in extracurricular activities conducted primarily for their own benefit.
0 Comments
We are pleased to announce that Carrie Herschman and Antoinette Choate were selected as 2017 Super Lawyers by Illinois Super Lawyers Magazine for the second year in a row and were previously were named Rising Stars for the past several years. Super Lawyers is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas from all 50 states who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the lawyers in Illinois are nominated by Super Lawyers. The selections for this esteemed list are made by the research team at Super Lawyers. Each year, the research team at Super Lawyers undertakes a rigorous multi-phase selection process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, independent evaluation of candidates by the attorney-led research staff, a peer review of candidates by practice area, and a good-standing and disciplinary check. As of January 1, 2017, the Illinois Employee Sick Leave Act requires Illinois employers who provide personal sick leave benefits to their employees to allow employees to take such leave for absences due to the illness, injury, or medical appointment of the employee’s child, spouse, sibling, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandchild, grandparent, or stepparent. The leave must be granted on the same terms under which the employee is able to use sick leave benefits for his or her own illness or injury. Under the Sick Leave Act, Illinois employers are required to provide employees the ability to use employer-provided personal sick leave benefits for absences of a reasonable amount of time due to illness, injury, or medical appointments of their immediate family, parents-in-law, grandchildren, or grandparents. Employees may use the leave on the same terms upon which the employees are able to use sick leave benefits for the employee’s own illness or injury. Under the Act, an employer can limit the use of such benefits to an amount not less than the personal sick leave that would be accrued during six months at the employee’s then current rate of entitlement. Additionally, employees cannot use such benefits for absences for which the employer’s plan already compensates the employee. The rights and remedies specified in the Act are in addition to any other rights or remedies by contract or law. The Act does not extend the maximum period of leave under the FMLA, regardless of whether the employee receives sick leave compensation during that leave. Moreover, an employer may provide greater sick leave benefits than required under the Act. Notably, employers who already have a paid time off policy that would otherwise provide benefits as required under the Act are not required to modify such policy. The Act also includes a provision prohibiting retaliation for use of rights under the Act. Employers cannot deny an employee the right to use personal sick leave benefits. Furthermore, they cannot discharge, suspend, or discriminate against an employee for using their personal sick leave benefits in accordance with the Act. Plaintiff-employee brought a Title VII action alleging that the defendant-employer fired her in retaliation for having reported that her supervisor had sexually harassed her. Gracia v. Sigmatron International, Inc., No. 15-3311 (7th Cir. November 29, 2016). After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for her retaliation claim. Defendant appealed the judgment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Circuit held that the record contained sufficient evidence to support jury's verdict. While the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was fired because she had failed to correct a production error on customer's order, the jury could believe the plaintiff's denial regarding alleged incident, as well as the disavowal of the incident by a co-worker, who, according to defendant, had initially reported the incident. Moreover, the plaintiff otherwise established a causal link between her report of sexual harassment and her termination 6 weeks later, especially where evidence indicated that defendant had tolerated similar errors made by co-workers who had not protested sexual harassment. Further, the record supported the jury's award of $50,000 in compensatory damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages, even though plaintiff merely stated that her termination was "hard" on her, and that she was depressed because she had always been used to working. The punitive damages were not excessive given defendant's efforts to hide the retaliatory discharge by generating a false paper trail that included manufactured details regarding plaintiff's job performance. Plaintiff, a Caucasian of a non-Pentecostal religion, sued her former employer for race and religion discrimination in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA"). Schnitker v. Springfield Urban League, Inc., 2016 Ill. App. (4th) 150991 (November 22, 2016). She claimed that her employer failed to rehire her for a teaching position after illegally discriminating against her based on her race and religion. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $100,000. The employer appealed, claiming that the trial court erred by tendering three of the Plainitff's proposed jury instructions to the jury relating to the IHRA. The IHRA requires Plaintiff to show a link between her race or religion and defendant's decision not to rehire her when asserting the basis for termination was pretextual. The Appellate Court held that nothing in record showed that the plaintiff presented direct evidence of discrimination. The jury instructions inaccurately conveyed the law, as instructions failed to identify that the jury had to determine whether the defendant failed to rehire the plaintiff because of her race or religion. Thus, the court erred in giving the instruction that the defendant's reason for termination was based on mixed motive, as the plaintiff failed to present evidence of mixed motive. |
As a Chicago employment lawyer, the firm focus primarily on employment law. Archives
June 2017
Categories
All
|