District court properly granted summary judgment that insured correctly classified claims representatives as administrative employees exempt from FLSA overtime pay, because they (1) performed work directly related to the insurer's management policies and business operations, (2) customarily and regularly exercised discretion and independent judgment, (3) worked under only general supervision and (4) did not contest the remaining requirements of the overtime exemption. Gallardo v. AIG Domestic Claims, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18776 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2015)
District court improperly refused to compel employer's production of pedigree information (name, social security number, last known address, and telephone number) of applicants and employees who took a qualifying test because the information related to the EEOC's investigation of that test. The district court had to reconsider its order denying enforcement of the EEOC subpoena's request about reasons for termination of other employees, by determining whether producing that information would unduly burden the employer. EEOC v. McLane Co., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1870 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2015).
Employer entitled to summary judgment against employee's claim that the employer forced him to retire by threatening a grievance hearing would cause his termination for sexual harassment, because he did not exhaust the applicable grievance procedure. Union entitled to summary judgment it did not take faith, arbitrary or discriminatory action regarding that hearing sufficient to breach its duty of fair representation. Debeikes v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146318 (D. Haw. Oct. 28, 2015)
Employer entitled to summary judgment against employee's race, age and retaliation claims. Management's alleged statements outside the statute of limitations were not part of an ongoing discriminatory practice within the statute. There were no sufficiently severe and pervasive statements referring to race or age within the statute. She did not make any protected complaint or show it caused the adverse action. Aoyagi v. Straub Clinic & Hospital, Inc. 2015 U.S. Dis. LEXIS 14479 (D. Haw. Oct. 26, 2015).
Note: We analyze cases to learn rules the courts will follow or disappoint us if they don't. Rules that the courts follow allow us to behave and provide explanations they accept. But competent advocates may limit the rules to the facts of the case where they are discussed, or expand rules by showing that differences in other cases are irrelevant.