Articles in regional publications that pertain to a wide range of North Carolina-related topics.
Search Results
29 results
for "Public Personnel Law Bulletin"
Currently viewing results 16 - 29
| Previous |
PAGE
OF 2
|
Record #:
20735
Author(s):
Abstract:
Supervisors are becoming increasingly concerned about their potential personal financial responsibility for the wrongdoings of subordinates. The type of lawsuit most cited as the source of concern for most supervisors of public employees is the one based on the Civil Rights Act of 1871. While this concern is not without foundation, much of it is based on misinformation. The following bulletin aims to give public managers a basic understanding of how this law may be used to hold them personally liable for the acts of someone they are responsible for supervising.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
20663
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin discusses the Supreme Court decision announced on June 23, 1999, in Alden v. Maine (No. 98-436), which greatly enhanced the states' sovereign immunity against claims brought against them by individuals alleging violations of federal law. North Carolina has not waived its right of sovereign immunity, and thus it is clear that individual employees may not sue a state agency for an FLSA violation; however, a suit may be pursued by the US Department of Labor.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
20736
Author(s):
Abstract:
On April 1, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in O'Conner v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. As explained briefly in this bulletin, the Court's decision broadens the scope of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) by permitting claims to be brought where both the employee adversely affected by a personnel decision and the employee who benefits from the decision are members of the protected class.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
20665
Author(s):
Abstract:
On May 1, 2000, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Christensen, et al. v. Harris County, et al. The issue in this case was whether the county employer could require its employees to use their accrued compensatory time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court held that the county could do so. This bulletin summarizes the Court's opinion and offers guidance for North Carolina public employers in dealing with the requirements of the FLSA.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
20645
Author(s):
Abstract:
Public agencies sometimes find themselves faced with allegations that employees have engaged in criminal misconduct, either on or off duty. What due process, if any, is due the employee who is to be suspended during the subsequent investigation? The United States Supreme Court has answered this question with its decision in Gilbert v. Homar. This bulletin provides a summary of the decision and its implications for public agencies.
Source:
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
20723
Author(s):
Abstract:
The 1994 short session of the NC General Assembly significantly changed the state's workers' compensation law with the enactment of Senate Bill 906. The Bill makes major changes designed to strike a balance between employees' desire to protect their rights to compensation for workplace injuries and employers' goals of reducing lost work days and constantly rising medical costs. This Bulletin summarizes these changes.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
20690
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes how federal courts in the Fourth Circuit and elsewhere have interpreted the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). It includes only Federal District Court and Court of Appeals cases.
Source:
Record #:
20699
Author(s):
Abstract:
New Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations governing overtime pay exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees will go into effect soon. This bulletin examines how the new regulations would affect state and local government employers in North Carolina.
Source:
Subject(s):
Record #:
20684
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin discusses a June 12, 2000 United States Supreme Court decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. Resolving a split of authority among the appellate courts, the Court unanimously held that a judge or jury may find an employer liable for intentional discrimination if a plaintiff-employee establishes a \"prima facie case\" of discrimination and proves that the employer's stated reason for a termination or other adverse employment action was false or pretextual. The Court's ruling rejected the \"pretext plus\" standard adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Under that approach, plaintiffs were required to prove not only that the employer's reason was false, but also that the real reason was unlawful discrimination.
Source:
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
20664
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin discusses four United States Supreme Court rulings decided at the end of the 1998-99 term that clarified employers' liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
20648
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes three United States Supreme Court decisions at the end of the 1997-98 term dealing with important matters of employment law.
Source:
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
20636
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin briefly summarizes three United States Supreme Court decisions from 1997 that are of interest to public employers. The cases are Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, and Auer v. Robbins.
Source:
Subject(s):
Full Text:
Record #:
20662
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin summarizes the amendments Congress made to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), effective September 30, 1997, regarding the use of consumer reports when making employment decisions the implications of these amendments for employers. Consumer reports contain information such as an individuals credit worthiness, credit standing, character, general reputation, and personal characteristics.
Source:
Full Text:
Record #:
20683
Author(s):
Abstract:
This bulletin focuses on the circumstances under which an injured employee can be terminated without running afoul of the Workers' Compensation Act or the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act.
Source:
Subject(s):
Full Text: