Supreme Court Rules Against Steelworkers' Claim
Labor & Employment
The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.
The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on.
Related listings
-
Court overturns $1M award against U of M, Smith
Labor & Employment 08/08/2012The Minnesota Supreme Court has overturned a $1 million award against the University of Minnesota and men's basketball coach Tubby Smith over the hiring of an assistant coach. Jimmy Williams quit his job as an assistant coach at Oklahoma State in 200...
-
Calif. jury awards $167M in sexual harassment suit
Labor & Employment 03/03/2012A Northern California jury has awarded $167 million to a former hospital employee who claimed in a lawsuit that she was sexually harassed at work and fired after she repeatedly complained. The federal court jury found Sacramento's Mercy General Hospi...
-
Calif high court hears debate over worker breaks
Labor & Employment 11/09/2011The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion. The case was initially...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.