South Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Where fire battalion chiefs argued they were covered by a “first responder regulation,” which required they be paid overtime, because their primary duty was management and not front line firefighting, the first responder regulation was inapplicable. A review of their ...

Where restaurant employees claimed that tips and automatic gratuities could not be considered in determining whether their employer met its obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, it was error to apply a statutory exemption—29 U.S.C. § 207(i)—to ...

Where the employer granted several accommodations to an employee after his knee surgery, including limiting walking to four hours per day and work to eight hours per day and allowing the use of a motorized scooter, but the employee instead ...

Despite a faculty manual’s declaration on nearly every page that “This is not a contract of employment,” the manual did in fact constitute the employment contract between the defendant-college and its tenured professors, including plaintiff. The college president decided to ...

Where a former deputy commonwealth’s attorney brought a claim under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause claiming she was fired in retaliation for reporting alleged sex discrimination, her claim was dismissed because the Equal Protection Clause cannot sustain a pure ...

Allegations that a 401(k) plan sponsor and management committee ignored an imprudent single-stock fund for several years was sufficient to support claims for breaches of the fiduciary duties of prudence and diversification imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ...

Although the pilot was not cleared to fly, an airline nevertheless violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA, by not reemploying him “promptly” in an alternative position. Background As Thomas Harwood neared completion of a tour ...

Although the jury found for the plaintiff on her claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act, and awarded her $50,000, the evidence was not enough to permit a reasonable jury to conclude the company’s proffered rationale for firing her ...

Where a salesperson alleged IBM defrauded him by “capping” his sales commissions despite allegedly representing they would not be capped, his claims for fraud, unjust enrichment or quantum meruit were not foreclosed by disclaimer language in which IBM reserved its right to ...

Although AutoZone remained liable for compensatory damages awarded to a former employee because of sexual harassment by a co-worker, the punitive damages award was vacated because there was insufficient evidence his managers engaged in intentionally discriminatory practices themselves with malice ...