Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query AIG. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query AIG. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Where is the Deep Water?

NJ Appellate Court allowed the assertion of a workers' compensation statutory lien against a liability award (NJSA 34:15-40), where the compensation insurance company paid the initial medical benefits without prejudice following a detailed dismissal by the Compensation Court before trial. This decision has far reaching consequences in defining when, on the timeline,  an insurance carrier's actions should trigger responsibility.

Workers' Compensation was designed as a summary and expeditious system paying injured workers who suffer an injury or illness at work. The benefits of treatment and temporary disability benefits are triggered by the event or manifestation of injury, and should flow quickly to the injured worker without a long, burdensome, and litigious process.

The payment of  major medical benefits by an employer, in the past, under The Sheffield Doctrine, has been considered to act as an estoppel, barring the denial of the compensation claim. The NJ Legislature modified its Workers' Compensation Act several decades ago, and allowed for the payment of medical benefits, without prejudice. The consequence  is that the injured worker is lulled into a sense of false security relying upon the implied acceptance of compensability. Albeit, the payment extends the statute of limitation for filing a formal claim.

The Court's dismissal, in the Greene matter, barring the assertion of the lien by the workers' compensation insurance company, was reversed and the lien enforced from the liability award.

Interestingly, the Court did not note that the technique of ordinary settlement, by payment of unauthorized medical payments, and/or for waiver of the right to appeal, was a common practice before the legislative enactment of NJSA 34:15-20. AIG in this case chose to "have your cake and eat it too."

Historically, prior to the legislative enactment of lump sum payments, pursuant to NJSA 34:15-20, voluntary dismissals were utilized as vehicle to compromise dependency, and other claims, for settlement. In those instances, following the dismissal of the workers' compensation claim, the parties would enter into a settlement, albeit a fiction, to settlement of the right to appeal and a letter of payment would be exchanged and/or a Release would be executed. Any potential was extinguished.

Beside the increased necessity of reducing the dismissal terms to writing, and/or stipulation of dismissal, the issue is generated of far the insurance company can step into the deep water before it comes committed to a decision. The Legislature needs to revisit this issue, and redefine the timeline for irrevocable commitment of responsibility, otherwise the initial Legislative intent for an expeditious, remedial administrative system will be defeated.

KELLY GREENE v AIG CASUALTY COMPANY, 
NJ App Div 2013 (Decided October 16, 2016) --- A.3d ----, 2013 WL 5629045 (N.J.Super.A.D.)

….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Sunday, November 3, 2013

12 Attacks On Workers’ Rights That Will Make You Kinda Mad

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.buzzfeed.com

These are just a few examples of the numerous legislative attacks on workers—both union and nonunion—that took place in 2011–2012, as documented in a new report by the Economic Policy Institute. Many of these attacks were coordinated by a corporate-funded lobbying organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
More recently, working families have been fighting back. To find out how, check out “10 Ways Working Families Are ‘Kicking Ass’ for the Middle Class.”

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Election 2016: Leveling the Playing Field For The American Worker

Senator Elizabeth Warren
As the political battlefield heats up for the 2016 Presidential Election, the issues dividing the American worker and corporate America grow. The recent passage of the Federal Governmental funding bill of in excess of $1.1 Trillion Dollars gives us insight into the major political/economic issue of growing inequality.

Funding the $2 Billion Dollar, 2016 Presidential Campaign, will require major contributions. A huge portion of that money will come from Corporate America. Even so, people actually vote and not corporations.

"Wall Street is one of the Democratic party’s biggest contributors."
Robert Reich

 "[Hillary] Clinton is obviously tough, but she just can’t speak with a clear voice against Wall Street and Washington insiders. Warren’s wing shows increasing passion and strength, both in opposing certain Obama nominees and in last week’s budget fight."

Click here to read "Warren Can Win" authored by David Brooks in the NY Times 12/15/2014
….

Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

AIG Exits Workers Compensation As Comp Medical Issues Grow

AIG has written, in what maybe, the first of many obituaries for the nation's patchwork of workers' compensation programs. The third largest excess workers' compensation insurance carrier, has announced that it is leaving the market because of instability in medical costs and the advent of national health care.

To read more click here:  BestWeek: Health Care Reforms, Medicare Spending Squeezing Excess Workers’ Comp Line 

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Maine Passes Laws Restricting Workers Compensation Benefits

The The Bangor Daily reports that the State of Maine is in the process of legislatively restricting workers ' compensation benefits. The law overhaul's the system with the following changes:

The main elements of the program overhaul include:
• Altered eligibility requirements and the creation of a 10-year cap for employees who are permanently impaired with partial incapacity.

• The elimination of a requirement that employers must continue paying benefits during an appeal.

• A new appeals divisions with authority to create rules of procedure.

• A shortened time period in which a notice of injury must be given, from 90 days to 30 days.

• A changed maximum benefit, from 80 percent of an employee’s net weekly wages to 66 percent of gross weekly wages.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

CMS/MSP Statute Tolling Case Set for Hearing by Federal Court

The claim filed by the US government for reimbursement against multiple law firms and insurance companies has been scheduled for a hearing September 13, 2010 on the pending motions. The Federal government, who has claimed that the Statute of Limitation was tolled, is seeking reimbursement involving over 900 specific claims that were paid involving a liability action. The gross settlement was $275 Million for which payment was made in 2003.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicad Services (CMS) under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act has alleged that it was not reimbursed. The Government contends that the Statute of Limitations under 28 U.S.C.2415 is 6 years and not three years. Alternatively the Government has argued that the Statute  f Limitations was tolled under 28 U.S,C, 2416(c), which permits tolling where a claim has accrued, but "facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known" by the Government.

The attorneys and insurance companies contend that the Statute of Limitations is a valid defense since the the claim arose when the defendants were originally obligated under the settlement agreement to make payment. Travelers and AIG, as parent companies,  claim that they are not proper parties to the case and should be removed as parties. The insurance companies, in a brief filed in June 2003, also allege that the bar to permitted the statute of limitation tolling should have been dropped under Federal statute. The stated in  "....once the facts making up the 'very essence of the right of action' are reasonably knowable."

United States of America v. James J. Stricker, et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-02423-KOB (USDCT AL).

Related Articles:
Amended Complaint Filed in CMS Recovery Action Against Law Firms

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational exposures.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Washington Workers' Advisor Blog Launched



A new blog, Washington Workers' Advisor, has been launched to provide information about law, policy and safety in the workplace. Jay Causey, of the Causey Law Firm said, that the "blog will apply decades of legal experience and expertise to keep the reader informed about trends and developments in workers' compensation law, social security disability, maritime claims, and other legal issues important to working people."

Attorney Jay Causey has practiced for over 30 years in the area of workers' compensation and disability law, including Washington State workers' compensation claims, Social Security Disability cases, Longshore and Harbor workers' Act cases, Defense Base Act claims, and maritime injury. The Causey Law Firm, located in Seattle, Washington, is a nationally recognized firm serving clients in Washington State. It exclusively represents individuals who have been injured or have become disabled.


Related articles

Monday, September 22, 2014

Illinois: Employer Convicted of a Felony for Failure to Have Workers' Compensation Insurance

The Illinois Worker’s Compensation (IWCC), in conjunction with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Special Prosecutions Division and the Cook County Sheriff’s Office, has secured the first felony conviction for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance.
Mr. Ahmed Ghosien, d/b/a Ghosien European Auto Werks, refused to comply with Illinois law despite having been given several opportunities to become compliant.  After aggressive enforcement efforts, on July 25, 2013, Mr. Ghosien entered a guilty plea to the Class 4 felony (People v. Ahmed Ghosien, 12 CR 20949).  This is the first felony conviction against an employer for failure to obtain workers’ compensation insurance since the penalty increase, from a misdemeanor to a Class 4 felony, was introduced in 2005 and remained a critical part of Gov. Quinn’s reforms to the Worker’s Compensation Act in 2011.
“Employers who refuse to obtain workers’ compensation insurance put their employees at risk, gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding competitors, and ultimately shift the cost of their business to Illinois taxpayers,” said Michael P. Latz, Chairman, Illinois Workers’ Compensation Commission.  “I commend the diligence of our investigators and this cooperative effort to help protect workers.”
Mr. Ghosien operates a large European auto repair shop at 4001 1/2 Southwest Highway, in Hometown, Illinois.  IWCC...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, March 7, 2011

Maryland Awards Washington Redskins Football Player Benefits

Washington Redskins game at FedExField, Landov...Image via Wikipedia

 A Maryland Court of Appeals has awarded workers' compensation benefits to Tom Tupa, a Washington Redskins football payer. He was injured while warming-up for a football game to be played at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland.

The Court held, "Considering the stipulated facts, we find that Tupa’s employment in Maryland was regular and not intermittent or temporary. Tupa was hired in Virginia, but the purpose of his employment was to play in professional football games at FedEx Field in Maryland and at various other stadiums around the country. We recognize that Tupa likely spends more time at the practice facility in Virginia than he spends playing in games at FedEx Field or elsewhere. As Hodgson suggests, however, the inquiry requires more than simply tallying up the quantity of time the employee spends in each jurisdiction. Here, it is clear that the purpose of Tupa’s employment was to play in games, not to practice. All of Tupa’s time in Virginia, whether practicing or attending team meetings, was geared towards improving his performance at the games. By way of contrast, a player signed to the practice squad would work entirely in Virginia because the purpose of a squad member's contract is to practice in Virginia."
Related articles

Monday, April 23, 2012

NJ Supreme Court To Rule on Several Critical Issues

The NJ Supreme Court has before it three issues of critical importance concerning workers' compensation including: the standard of proof in a fatal heart claim; remedy for the failure of an insurance company to provide medical care, and the "exclusivity rule." These decisions have the potential to be landmark decisions.


1. Standard of Proof in a Fatal Heart Claim: Does the record support this workers' compensation claim under N.J.S.A. 34:15-7.2, which sets the standard of proof governing claims based on injury or death from cardiovascular causes?


Workers' Compensation benefits were awarded for a pulmonary embolism causally related to sedentary work activity. A NJ Appellate Court awarded benefits for the development of a pulmonary embolism precipitated by the inactivity of sitting long hours at a desk job.


Certification granted: 2/14/12
Posted: 2/14/12
A-71-11 James P. Renner v. AT&T (068744)

2.  Remedy for the Failure of the Insurance Company to Provide Medical Care:
May an employee who suffered a work-related injury pursue a common-law cause of action against a workers’ compensation carrier for willful failure to comply with court orders compelling it to provide medical treatment when the delay or denial of treatment causes the employee’s condition to worsen?

The NJ Supreme is going to review the procedure to bring bad faith claims against employers and insurance companies in workers' compensation actions. The Court accepted for review a case holding that workers' compensation bad faith claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the workers' compensation hearing official.

Certification granted 6/7/11
Posted 6/10/11
Argued: 3/26/12
A-112-10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA (067640)


3. The Exclusivity Rule:

Under the circumstances of this case, which include a finding by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration that the accident was the result of a “willful violation” of its regulations, did the employer’s action constitute an “intentional wrong” that would preclude immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the workers’ compensation statute?

NJ Courts have held that trench accidents were not a mere fact of industrial life and were beyond intent of Act's immunity provision. A claim was permitted directly against the employer in addition to the workers' compensation action. 

Certification granted 1/27/11
Posted 1/28/11
Argued: 10/12/11
A-69-10 Kenneth Van Dunk, Sr. v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp. (066949)


Related articles

Monday, November 4, 2013

The End of the Class-Action Carnival

The End of the Class-Action Carnival
Class actions have been a major vehicle to creating safer workplace in the past. It is imperative that the people have their day in court to maintain a democratically balanced system of  government. Today's post article is shared from businessweek.com.

F. Paul Bland Jr. brings class-action lawsuits for a living. Over the years he’s represented groups of plaintiffs in suits against payday lender Check ’n Go and financial institution Wachovia.

He’s worried about business drying up. As a result of hostile Supreme Court rulings over the last several years, scores of mass consumer and employment suits that would have been viable a decade ago have been dismissed, says Bland, a senior attorney with Public Justice, a nonprofit in Washington.

“People bring me cases against cable companies or big employers, and I say, ‘Forget it. It’s impossible. Not even worth trying.’ ”

The mass lawsuit—in which hundreds or even thousands of plaintiffs join together to go after a corporate defendant—is in deep trouble. Growing judicial skepticism toward such suits and toward the lucrative settlements they generate has caused plaintiffs’ attorneys to shy away from accepting lengthy, complicated cases.

That’s tilting the legal playing field decisively in favor of Big Business—and as the Supreme Court reconvened on Oct. 7 for its 2013-14 term, trial lawyers are bracing for more setbacks.
Not everyone is shedding tears. Walter Olson, a legal expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, attributes the decline of mass lawsuits to a predictable—and...

[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, May 11, 2012

Law to Ban Medical Expense Claims Proposed

Legislation (A-2652) [introduced May 10, 2012] has been proposed in NJ that would ban charging workers’ compensation claimants for medical expenses and gives the Division of Workers’ Compensation sole jurisdiction over work-related medical claims. The law would be a positive initiative for all parties as it will subject medical provider claims to an exclusive remedy and consolidate the claims before a single administrative agency for resolution.


The legislation will be the subject of consideration by the NJ Assembly Labor Committee on Monday, May 14, 2012.


Click here to read: Clearing the Workers' Compensation Benefit Highway of Medical Expense Land Mines

By John H. Geaney and Jon L. Gelman
"Medical expenses in contested workers’ compensation cases are now a significant and troublesome issue resulting in uncertainty, delay and potential future liability. Th recent NJ Supreme Court decision, University of Mass. Memorial Hospital v. Christodoulou, 180 N.J. 334 (2004) has left the question of how to adjudicate medical benefits that were conditionally paid or paid in error. Presently there is no exclusively defined procedure to determine the allocation, apportionment of primary responsibility for unauthorized medical expenses and reimbursement."



Statement of the Bill

"This bill prohibits the charging of workers’ compensation 
claimants for medical expenses that have been authorized by the 
employer or its carrier or its third party administrator, that have 
been paid by the employer, its carrier or third party administrator 
pursuant to pursuant to the workers’ compensation law, or which 
been determined by the Division of Workers’ Compensation to 
be the responsibility of the employer, its carrier or third party 
administrator.  The bill gives the division sole jurisdiction over 
disputed work-related medical claims, and directs the division to 
provide procedures to resolve those disputes, including procedural 
requirements for medical providers or any other party to the 
dispute.  Finally, the bill provides that the treatment of an injured 

worker or the payment of workers’ compensation to an injured 

worker or dependent of an injured or deceased worker shall not be 
delayed because of a claim by a medical provider. "


Further Reference:
NJ Task Force Report on Medical Provider Claims
"During our meetings, it came to the attention of the Task Force that “balance billing” is a 
problem. This is the practice wherein authorized medical providers accept fees paid by the
carrier and then issue a bill to the petitioner for any remaining balance. In an effort to eradicate
this practice, the Task Force recommends an amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15. Section 15 of the
Act requires that employers furnish and pay for physicians, surgeons and hospital services for the
injured worker. Having reviewed the statute and the case law, the Task Force believes that there
is a need to clarify that balance billing in the workers’ compensation setting is inappropriate.

Accordingly, the Task Force recommends the following amendment to N.J.S.A. 34:15-15 which
we would propose would appear as a paragraph between the final two paragraphs of that section.

This additional language would read as follows:
“Fees for treatments that have been authorized by the employer or
its carrier or its third party administrator, or which have been
determined by the court to be the responsibility of the employer, its
carrier or third party administrator, shall not be charged against or
collectible from the injured worker. Sole jurisdiction for any
disputed medical charge arising from a workers’ compensation
claim shall be vested in the Division of Workers’ Compensation.”

Saturday, October 26, 2013

Florida Upholds Low Counsel Fees

$164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work

"Constrained by the statutory formula set forth in section 440.34(1), Florida
Statutes (2009), the judge of compensation claims awarded claimant’s counsel an
attorney’s fee of only $164.54 for 107.2 hours of legal work reasonably necessary
to secure the claimant’s workers’ compensation benefits. We do not disagree with
the learned judge of compensation claims that the statute required this result, and
are ourselves bound by precedent to uphold the award, however inadequate it may
be as a practical matter. "
*****
"In the circumstances, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following as a question of great public importance:
WHETHER THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN
THIS CASE IS ADEQUATE, AND CONSISTENT
WITH THE ACCESS TO COURTS, DUE PROCESS,
EQUAL PROTECTION, AND OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA AND
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS.

The fee award is affirmed, and the question of its constitutional adequacy is
certified to the supreme court. "


MARVIN CASTELLANOS, 
Appellant, 
v. 
NEXT DOOR COMPANY/ 
AMERISURE INSURANCE 
CO., 
Appellees. (Filed Oct. 23, 2013)

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Asbestos Disease Claims Continue to Surge

A recent analysis reveals that mesothelioma claims continue to surge. Insurance companies such as Hartford and AIG forced to increase reserves. Exposures from the 1970's are now manifesting in disease and claims for benefits. 


Mesothelioma is a rare but fatal condition caused by exposure to asbestos fiber. It is a condition that they remain dormant for as long as 30 years or more before manifesting symptoms.


Asbestos was used as an insulation product and for structural support i many products including ceiling title and other construction material. It was used to insulate boilers and other heat generating devices.

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Editorial - Unscrupulous businesses hurt workers, honest competitors and economy

Today's  post is shared from starnewsonline.com/
Dishonest contractors are cheating taxpayers of millions of dollars and undercutting the livelihood of employees and law-abiding competitors. Regulators who are supposed to curb this type of abuse have done little to stop it.
By deliberately and illegally classifying construction employees as "independent contractors," these companies avoid paying unemployment, workers compensation and withholding taxes, among others. The extent of this abuse was documented in The Raleigh News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer as part of a larger series by McClatchy newspapers. The impact is mind-boggling.
Since 2009, the newspapers estimated that North Carolina contractors have cost state, federal and local taxpayers $467 million.
The problem extends beyond the taxman. Workers are cheated out of health insurance, workers compensation should they be injured on the job. The company doesn't pay into unemployment insurance designed to cover workers who are laid off through no fault of their own.
Many of these companies do not withhold payroll taxes, either, meaning that workers don't get credit for paying into Social Security. These "independent" workers often are paid in cash, many of them vastly underreport their income – thereby shortchanging Uncle Sam and the state kitty.
Moreover, companies that illegally cut corners often can underbid honest contractors who obey the law. Over the years there have...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, June 11, 2012

OSHA fines Clifton, NJ, stucco contractor more than $108,000 for exposing workers to fall hazards

The seal of the United States Department of Labor
The seal of the United States Department of Labor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited DD Stucco and Renovation LLC for six safety — including two willful — violations related to fall hazards at a Mountain Lakes work site. OSHA opened an inspection in November 2011 as part of its local emphasis program on falls and proposed a total of $108,240 in penalties.


"This company is risking worker injury and possible death by failing to provide proper fall protection," said Kris Hoffman, director of OSHA's Parsippany Area Office, which conducted the inspection. "Employers need to know that falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry, and proper precautions must be taken."


The willful violations carry a $92,400 penalty and are due to a lack of fall protection for employees working on a scaffold that was not fully planked. A willful violation is one committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health.


Four serious violations, which carry a $15,840 penalty, are for a scaffold that was not secured to the structure or supported on an adequate firm foundation, unstable objects used to support the scaffold and employees climbing across braces to access the scaffold. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.


In April, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis announced a new campaign to provide employers and workers with life-saving information and educational materials about working safely from ladders, scaffolds and roofs in an effort to prevent deadly falls in the construction industry. In 2010, more than 10,000 construction workers were injured as a result of falling while working from heights, and more than 250 workers were killed. OSHA's fall prevention campaign was developed in partnership with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and NIOSH's National Occupational Research Agenda program. More detailed information is available in English and Spanish on fall protection standards at http://www.osha.gov/stopfalls.


"Fall hazards involving these and other safety issues can be avoided when an illness and injury prevention program is developed and implemented, and management and workers proactively identify and eliminate hazardous conditions," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.


The citations can be viewed at http://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/DDStucco_316089713_0521_12.pdf*.


DD Stucco and Renovation is headquartered in Clifton and had three workers at the Mountain Lakes site. The company has 15 business days from receipt of the citations to comply, request an informal conference with the OSHA area director, or contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Parsippany office at 973-263-1003.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, OSHA's role is to promote safe and healthful working conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, outreach and education. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

NLRB Office of the General Counsel Authorizes Complaints against Walmart, Also Finds No Merit to Other Charges

The labor movement was the catalyst for the legislation known as the Workers' Compensation Act following the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in 1911. Will this repeat itself? Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nlrb.gov

The National Labor Relations Board Office of the General Counsel has investigated charges alleging that Walmart violated the rights of its employees as a result of activities surrounding employee protests.  The Office of the General Counsel found merit in some of the charges and no merit in others.  The Office of the General Counsel has authorized complaints on alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act.  If the parties cannot reach settlements in these cases, complaints will issue.
The Office of the General Counsel found merit to alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act against Walmart, such as the following:
  • During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests on November 22, 2012.
  • Walmart stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests.
  • Walmart stores in California, Florida, Missouri and Texas unlawfully threatened, surveilled, disciplined, and/or terminated employees in anticipation of or in response to employees’ other protected concerted activities.
The Office of the General Counsel found no merit, absent appeal, to alleged violations...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]