Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals, the amicus brief systematically dismantles the legal and practical reasoning underlying the so-called “honest belief” defense. To accept a defendant’s professed “honest belief” that the reasons for taking an adverse action against an employee are correct, when presented with evidence that the asserted reasons are unworthy of credence, requires the court to draw a series of inferences regarding the weight of that evidence and the credibility of those presenting it, in favor of the non-moving party
Sharif v United Airlines_4th Cir_NELA MWELA Amicus Brief_Final_102615.pdf
Sharif’s FMLA retaliation claim, relying substantially on the so-called “honest belief” defense, whereby a defendant’s proffered non-discriminatory reason for taking an adverse action against the Plaintiff need not be accurate, as long as it is “honestly believed.”
The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy Toolkit Paper: Preserving The Right To A Jury Trial By Preventing Adverse Credibility Inferences At Summary Judgment examines three pernicious ways in which courts make determinations about the credibility of witnesses at summary judgment (a task more appropriately left to the jury): discrediting the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses as “self-serving,” accepting unchallenged the defendant’s “honest belief” that they did not discriminate, and deferring to a defendant’s “business judgment.”
In essence, according to an amicus curiae brief filed by a number of religious and employee rights organizations, “those decisions held that in the employment setting, Title VII’s original prohibition on religion-based discrimination protected only religious belief, not religiously motivated conduct.”
The amicus brief noted that the decision below contradicted MSPB precedent protecting individuals perceived by management to be whistleblowers from retaliation based on that belief, whether or not the individual had actually engaged in protected conduct
NELA asserts that if the FLSA’s policy of ensuring that workers are paid fairly for an honest day’s work is to mean anything, then they must have the ability to join together collectively and courts should not overturn the findings of juries when there is sufficient evidence to show commonality among the members of the collective action
NELA Amicus Brief_FINAL_7.02.15.pdf
Five years ago today, on February 22, 2008, the NELA family realized a long-held dream when The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute For Law & Policy (The Institute) was created as our related nonprofit public interest organization. Our belief in our mission was—and is—so strong that we were eager to expand NELA’s reach beyond our community of employee rights advocates and to have an even greater impact on employee rights
Veteran litigators Alicia K. Haynes, Yona Rozen & J. Bryan Wood present Lessons Learned At Trial: Dos & Don'ts For Handling "Hidden Bias" In Employment Claims. Our presenters will share their best practice tips on handling "hidden bias" in employment discrimination cases. Topics to be addressed...
4 attachments
See matching library entry files - This panel will discuss the positive effects of ...
On February 28, 2013, NELA filed an amicus brief urging the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to give retroactive effect to provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) in Day v. Dept. of Homeland Security , MSPB Docket No. DC-1221-12-0528-W-1. At issue in this case...
NELA Amicus_Day v. DHS_022813.pdf
The National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) published a report entitled, “Judicial Hostility To Workers’ Rights: The Case For Professional Diversity On The Federal Bench,” which targets another type of diversity that is equally as important and sorely lacking on the federal bench&...
NELA Report on Judicial Hostility To Workers Rights_Professional Diversity_Final.pdf
On July 21, 2014, NELA filed a motion for leave and submitted a proposed amicus curiae brief in Turner v. Inzer , Case No. 14-11357, pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Defendant Inzer refused to consent to the filing of the amicus brief. The major issues on...
Turner amicus brief_07.23.2014_FINAL.pdf
In order to assist NELA members and to provide answers to questions that have arisen following the landmark ruling by the National Labor Relations Board on January 3, 2012 in D.R. Horton, Inc. and Michael Cuda (Case No. 12-CA-25764 http://www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-25764 ), NELA and The Employee...
D.R. Horton FAQ_revised_with sample ULP_01 31 12.pdf
4th Circuit decision