Follow Us
twittergoogle_pluslinkedinrssyoutube
Subscribe to the BT Currents Blog

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Recent Posts
The Legal Stuff
BT Currents - Hot Topics in Employment Law

01 Nov Untimeliness, Hearsay, and Failure to Link Alleged Negative References and Third-Party Job Rescissions to Protected Activity Doom Employee’s Retaliation Claim

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has dismissed the retaliation claims raised against Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) by former employee Cassandra Welch (Welch), reaffirming that discrete acts of alleged retaliation must independently meet timeliness requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (imposing a four year statute of limitations), and finding a void of evidence to link eighteen job rescissions to any retaliatory animus on behalf of Lilly. Specifically, in Welch v. Eli Lilly Co., found here, Plaintiff Welch had been terminated…

0 0
READ MORE

26 Jul Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds the Enforcement of a Five-Year Non-compete Agreement

When Indiana employers draft non-compete agreements, they must weigh whether the Indiana courts will find their agreements’ restrictions to be reasonable, and therefore enforceable.  The Indiana Court of Appeal recently issued a decision which illustrates how restrictive these agreements can be.  In Mayne v. O’Bannon Publishing Co. d/b/a Corydon Instant Press, the court upheld the enforcement of a five-year non-compete agreement covering a two-county area. O’Bannon Publishing Co. employed Elizabeth Mayne as a manager at its facility in Harrision County, Indiana, which is directly across the…

0 0
READ MORE

12 Sep Unverified EEOC Filing Not Good Enough, Says Northern District of Indiana

As many employers know, before proceeding to court, Title VII discrimination lawsuits must first be filed with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) or a parallel state agency.  Aiming to protect employees by ensuring that a charging party is at least willing to make his or her claims subject to the penalties for perjury, federal statutory law further requires that the agency charge be filed “in writing under oath or affirmation[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). It is this less well known requirement that recently tripped…

0 0
READ MORE

16 Aug Indiana Plaintiff Defeats Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason Defense

A usually reliable defense in federal court employment cases is the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, but recently, that defense turned out not to be enough in a sex discrimination claim. As a refresher, an employee who believes she was not selected for a given position because of her race or sex – or any other protected characteristic, for that matter – can establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the summary judgment stage using the commonly used McDonnell Douglas method.  To do so, she must…

0 0
READ MORE

10 Jul What Does the Supreme Court’s Ruling Mean to Indiana Employers?

While the Supreme Court held that several provisions of AZ’s immigration law were preempted by federal law in the landmark decision of Arizona v. United States, employers should not be misled into believing that all state law immigration laws have been invalidated. The provisions of the law which were struck down were those of a criminal nature (i.e., making it a misdemeanor for unauthorized aliens to apply for work, to fail to carry valid immigration documents as well as a provision for warrantless arrests of…

0 0
READ MORE