Consult with Siegel & Dolan today! Call (312) 878-3210

Blog

  • Department of Labor Says Law Students May Work as Unpaid Interns

    In a letter to the American Bar Association, the U.S. Department of Labor recently stated that law students may work as unpaid interns, as long as the intern works exclusively on pro bono, or non-fee-generating matters. In her letter, the Solicitor of Labor identified additional requirements the internship must satisfy to ensure compliance with…

    Read More
  • CALIFORNIA MINIMUM WAGE INCREASED TO $10/HR BY 2016

    California continues to set the standard for employee wage and hour rights in America. Months after House Republicans voted unanimously against a bill that would have raised the federal minimum wage to $10.10 over the course of years, California has signed into law a bill raising the state minimum wage to $10.00 by 2016….

    Read More
  • CAFFARELLI & SIEGEL LTD. OBTAINS JUDGMENT

    Caffarelli & Siegel Ltd. recently obtained a judgment in the case of Cisneros v. Mikdon, Inc. d/b/a Jake’s Pizza, et al. The firm represented Abraham Cisneros, a former employee of Jake’s. At the outset of his employment, Mr. Cisneros signed a contract with defendants promising him an hourly wage of $10, plus commissions. During…

    Read More
  • Merrill Lynch Agrees to Pay $160M Settlement in Race Discrimination Suit

    In late August, Merrill Lynch and a class of former and current employees settled a race discrimination suit against the company. The lawsuit, George McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, was initially filed in 2005 on behalf of 700 African American brokers throughout the country. As many as 1,200 people could share in the settlement payout….

    Read More
  • Sixth Circuit Finds Direct Evidence of Age Discrimination from Supervisor’s Statements

    In Sharp v. Aker Plant Servs. Grp., the Sixth Circuit found that the employer was accountable for whatever age bias a supervisor harbored and that the supervisor’s comments were direct evidence that plaintiff’s age was a “but for” factor in the company’s firing decision. Sharp alleges his former employer violated the Kentucky Civil Rights…

    Read More
  • Seventh Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer in Sexual Harassment Case

    In Lambert v. Peri Formworks Sys. Inc., the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer on a sexual harassment claim. Plaintiff Lambert claims that throughout his tenure at Peri, a co-worker would regularly sexually harass him by asking him for sexual favors, touching Lambert inappropriately, and touching himself…

    Read More
  • Senate Seeks to Abrogate Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

    In a 2009 decision, the Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc. held that a plaintiff bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) must prove that age was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action. The “but for” standard is a more stringent test…

    Read More
  • Can Your Appearance Affect Your Employment?

    In Gayle v. Human Rights Comm’n, the Appellate Court of Illinois held that an employee who could not show that the employer knew that his dreadlocks were mandated by his religion or national origin could not establish a discrimination claim. Gayle was a Jamaican-born black man who spoke with a Jamaican accent and was…

    Read More
  • How Will Medical Marijuana Affect Employment Law in Illinois?

    Medical marijuana will officially be legal in Illinois on January 1, 2014 to treat serious conditions including cancer or AIDS. The bill, signed into law by Gov. Patrick J. Quinn last week, will allow patients to get up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana every 14 days from a state-regulated dispensary. Notably, however, medical marijuana…

    Read More
  • The U.S. Supreme Court Narrowly Defines the Term “Supervisor” for Purposes of Title VII

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its decision in Vance v. Ball State Univ. that more strictly defined the term “supervisor.” Previously, the Court held that an employer may be strictly liable under Title VII when a supervisor harasses another employee. However, the Vance opinion rejected the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance as to…

    Read More