Legal

No malice was involved when a company sent an e-mail saying an employee was fired for allegedly padding his expense reports, a jury has concluded in a closely watched case because of the First Amendment issue it raised.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is examining two court rulings–one from the 2008-09 term that shifted the burden of proof in age discrimination cases from the employer to the employee and another from early in the decade that strengthened employment contract arbitration.

Massachusetts’ highest court has affirmed $973,000 in compensatory damages and restored $1 million in punitive damages against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a sexual discrimination case brought by a pharmacy manager who contended she was paid less than her male counterparts.

A series of company name changes and internal corporate mergers do not prevent an employer from tapping the California Insurance Guarantee Association, a state appeals court rules.

In a 5-4 decision, the court said that age couldn’t simply be a ‘motivating factor’ in an employment decision; it had to be the decisive cause in order for age discrimination protections to take effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court asks the administration for its opinion on whether it should review a ruling upholding San Francisco’s controversial health care spending law.

The administration is considering whether to seek an extension of a federal law that subsidizes COBRA health insurance premiums for workers who are involuntarily laid off.

The Senate Finance Committee has rejected an amendment that would have removed a $6.7 billion annual fee on health insurers that is included in a health reform bill the panel is considering.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the state Public Employee Retirement System Investment Act, two counts of breach of fiduciary duty, one count of gross negligence and one violation of the Michigan Constitution.