Johnson v. GDF, Inc.: Attorneys fees

02/27/2012

0 Comments

 
Earlier this month, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the Northern District of Illinois ruling in Johnson v. GDF, Inc., No. 11-1934 (February 13, 2012).

The case brought a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim.  The employee (plaintiff) had been awarded $5,000 in compensatory and punitive damages after three-day trial where the employee alleged that he was fired after filing lawsuit seeking overtime wages.  In error, the court then calculated a fee award after striking all but four hours out of the 190-hour request by the employee's counsel and reducing requested hourly rate of $600 per hour to $375 per hour. 

The Seventh Circuit held that the district court could not base reduction in hours on claim that case would have settled earlier in case had counsel accurately told plaintiff of limited potential damages award where liability in instant case was fully contested. Furthermore, the district court could not reduce the hourly rate where: (1) the district court decided on its own that legal market distinguished between FLSA and Title VII cases based on perception that FLSA cases are easier to prosecute; and (2) the district court limited itself to consideration of only fee awards that plaintiff's counsel had received in contested fee requests. 
Add Comment
 

Antoinette Choate Presents at 7th Circuit Conference

02/22/2012

0 Comments

 
February 20, 2012 - Antoinette Choate presented opening remarks at NELA-Illinois's Tenth Annual Seventh Circuit Conference on Trial Practice for the Platiniff's Employment Lawyer at Chicago-Kent College of Law.  

Later that day, she also moderated the ethics panel which discussed various ethical issues arising from trial practice.  The panel addressed many of the applicable rules as well as best practices given those rules.  Specifically the panel looked at interactions with jurors and potential jurors, protecting client confidences, and other topics. Ethics mold every aspect of trial and is an essential part of practicing law.
Add Comment
 

D.R. Horton, Inc. - A Powerful Tool For Employees

02/16/2012

0 Comments

 
The National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) recently found that an employer cannot require employees to sign arbitration agreements that prohibit class action claims.  D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (January 3, 2012)

This ruling applies to all employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), regardless of whether the employees have unionized or not.  The Board held that the prohibition on class claims violates workers’ rights to engage in concerted activities under Section 7 of the NLRA and constitutes an unfair labor practice.

This case will be a tool for employees to further their rights in the workplace and will likely be challenged by many employers.  However, for now, its one of the most significant cases since AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) ("Concepcion") (when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of class action waiver provisions in consumer arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act).

See the full opinion:  www.state.il.us/court/CircuitCourt/CivilJuryInstructions/default.asp    
Add Comment
 

Filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Part V

02/03/2012

0 Comments

 
Note: This focuses on Illinois employees working or applying for employment with private employers in Illinois.  Federal employees or applicants should see EEOC regulations applicable to federal employee complaints.

The final part of this series addresses how the EEOC interacts with other agencies as.  To learn which agency is best for you, what laws you have claims under, and how to best proceed with your claims, you should talk to an employment lawyer.

Other Agencies

Many states and localities have anti-discrimination laws and agencies responsible for enforcing those laws.  Illinois has the Illinois Human Rights Act and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) as well as local laws and agencies (such as the Cook County Commission on Human Rights and the Chicago Commission on Human Relations).

Through the use of "work sharing agreements," EEOC and IDHR avoid duplication of effort while protecting a charging party's under both federal and state law. If a charge is filed with the IDHR and is also covered by federal law, the IDHR "dual files" the charge with EEOC to protect federal rights. The charge usually will be retained by the lIDHR for handling. If a charge is filed with EEOC and also is covered by state law, EEOC "dual files" the charge with the IDHR, but ordinarily the EEOC retains the charge for handling.

There are many differences in the laws that apply to discrimination claims and differences in how investigations are handled at each of the agencies.  To determine which agency is best for you, you should talk to an employment lawyer before you file your charge.
Add Comment