In Almond v. Unified School District #501, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was enacted in 2009, does not extend the statute of limitations on all discrimination claims every time a person receives a paycheck. Rather, the Tenth Circuit concluded it applies to extend the statute of limitations only when the claim is for discrimination in compensation. In other words, the Act does not apply to all discriminatory decisions that result in lower pay rate, it only applies when a person claims that he or she is being discriminated against in receiving lower compensation than other similarly situated workers for the same work.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Utah Court of Appeals: Former Orem City Treasury Division Manager a Merit Employee Required to Appeal City Decision to Utah Court of Appeals
In Kocherhans v. Orem City, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the decision of a trial court dismissing the claim of a former Orem City Treasury Division Manager for wrongful termination. The court ruled that the former employee's failure to appeal the Employee Appeal Board's decision to the Utah Court of Appeals precluded him from bringing the claim in district court. The former employee claimed that he should have been considered an "at-will" employee that was not governed by Utah Code Ann. section 10-3-1106, which required him to appeal such a decision. The Utah Court of Appeals rejected the argument holding that Orem City was not required to designate his position as a division head or deputy position, declaring that cities in Utah have no obligation to create any deputy positions at all.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Utah Court of Appeals: Court "Takes Issue" with Workforce Appeals Board's Use of Unintroduced Computer Records to Overturn ALJ Decision
In Swenson v. Department of Workforce Services, the Utah Court of Appeals "[took] issue with the [Workforce Appeals] Board's reliance on evidence that was not presented to the ALJ or given to the parties" to reverse an ALJ's decision in an appeal of an unemployment benefits determination. Although the Court ultimately affirmed the Workforce Appeals Board's decision on separate grounds, it spent significant time addressing the Board's reliance on Department of Workforce Service's computer records introduced at the Board level but not introduced during the initial hearing. The Court concluded its analysis by stating that "the procedure followed by the Board appears to violate its own rules and Swenson's right to due process."