BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
RICHMOND, Va.—At minimum, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling in Karla Gerner vs. County of Chesterfield, Va., should serve as a reminder to employers to treat all employees equally, observers say.
Severance packages are an issue “that employment lawyers and employers are dealing with all the time,” said Randall E. Phillips, a member of Moore & Van Allen P.L.L.C. in Charlotte, N.C.
Employees who leave voluntarily or are terminated often are given agreements to sign. “Sometimes they sign them and sometimes they don't,” so the case does not present an “unusual fact pattern,” he said.
Robin E. Shea, a partner with Constangy, Brooks & Smith L.L.P. in Winston-Salem, N.C., said the ruling tells employers “to make sure when they are offering severance packages to employees, they are consistent.”
While she noted the case against Chesterfield County still has not been proven, “it does illustrate that it's important to be consistent in what you offer people, or at least offer similarly situated employees a similar deal,” because not doing so “can be evidence of discrimination or possibly retaliation.”
Maria Greco Danaher, a shareholder with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart P.C. in Pittsburgh, said employers that treat employees in protected categories inconsistently are “likely to wind up” in the same spot as Chesterfield County.
RICHMOND, Va.—An appeals court ruling that current and former employees can seek redress under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in a case involving a severance package is expected to be influential nationally.