In analogous Title VII cases, where an employee presents direct evidence that the employer's adverse decision was motivated in part by unlawful employment discrimination (because of race, sex, religion, national origin, or color), a burden-shifting mechanism kicks in. Instead of the norm where the burden of persuasion rests with the employee, the jury in a Title VII mixed-motive case is instructed that the employer bears the burden of persuasion to establish that it would have made the same adverse decision absent the alleged unlawful discrimination.

Based on the majority's view of differences in the statutory language of Title VII and the ADEA, the Court refused to apply Title VII's burden-shifting mechanism to ADEA claims. Under Gross, regardless of whether an employee presents direct (or other) evidence that age was a motivating factor in the employer's adverse decision, the employee always retains the burden of persuasion to establish "but-for" causation, i.e., that age discrimination was, in fact, the reason for the adverse decision. As a practical matter, Gross makes age discrimination claims, which were already difficult for employee's to establish because of the comparatively high "but-for' causation standard, ever more difficult from the employee's perspective.

Held: Vacated and remanded, THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

The D.C. Wage Payment and Wage Collection Law applies to most non-government employers in the District of Columbia. In general, it requires employers to pay employees wages earned at least twice a month on regular paydays and to make timely payment of wages upon an employee's departure. The wage law does not apply to executives, administrative, or professional employees.

Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about payment of wages in the District of Columbia:

Specifically, the Virginia Conspiracy Act provides for civil actions based on a conspiracy by two or more persons to injure a person or entity's business interests (not employment interests). In addition to injunctive relief, a prevailing plaintiff may recover treble damages (three-times the amount of damages), plus attorneys' fees and costs.

Key provisions of the Virginia Business Conspiracy Act follow:

Courts in Virginia and the District of Columbia have carved out “narrow” exceptions to the at-will doctrine for claims of "wrongful termination" or "wrongful discharge" in violation of public policy. The highest courts of the respective jurisdictions have expressed the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine as follows:

The drop-down menu on the left under "Employment Laws" categorizes the statutes collected thus far by jurisdiction. The goal for completion of the initial phase with at least a blurb and link to or summary of each major statute as soon as possible. Stay tuned.

Media General Operations, Inc., d/b/a The Tampa Tribune v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 08-1153 (March 13, 2009). Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and Rebecca Beach SMITH, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

In this case, employee James Dotson (Dotson) was awarded more than $722,000 on his FMLA interference and retaliation claims, including $333,305 in statutory liquidated damages, $375,000 in attorneys' fees, and $14,265 in costs. Each party appealed different rulings of the trial court. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment, except as to the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest. Holding that pre-judgment interest on FMLA damage awards is mandatory, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case, directing the trial court to recalculate Dotson's damage and fee awards to include pre-judgment interest.

The following arguments made by Pfizer and rejected by the Fourth Circuit provide clear guidance to employers that the burden is on employers -- not employees -- to understand and properly apply the FMLA:

The Department of Labor has a useful summary of the COBRA subsidy with links to the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill). This provision needs to be read and understood by employers and employees alike.