Jeffrey Campolongo

January 22, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

Every now and then an employment law decision will come down the pike that seems to come out of left field, leaving those of us who comment on these things to really scratch our heads.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

5 minute read

December 29, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As 2015 draws to a close, here is a look at some of the emerging employment law issues on the horizon in 2016 affecting Philadelphians. Without further ado, here is the list.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

December 29, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As 2015 draws to a close, here is a look at some of the emerging employment law issues on the horizon in 2016 affecting Philadelphians. Without further ado, here is the list.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

October 23, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As many employment lawyers are now well aware, determining what is and what is not a "disability" under the applicable laws can be a litigation minefield. With the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) on Jan. 1, 2009, there were supposed to be sweeping changes to the way the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was being interpreted. The new law expanded the definition of "disability" in response to the restricted view given to it by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, which were interpreting the definition too narrowly.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

6 minute read

October 22, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

As many employment lawyers are now well aware, determining what is and what is not a "disability" under the applicable laws can be a litigation minefield. With the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) on Jan. 1, 2009, there were supposed to be sweeping changes to the way the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was being interpreted. The new law expanded the definition of "disability" in response to the restricted view given to it by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, which were interpreting the definition too narrowly.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

6 minute read

September 25, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The (over)use of the summary judgment process in employment discrimination cases has been heartily scrutinized over the years.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

September 25, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The (over)use of the summary judgment process in employment discrimination cases has been heartily scrutinized over the years.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

August 28, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reminded this writer that you could still learn something new about the law every day. Even in an area that you are a supposed expert. This time, it was a decision regarding the so-called "manager rule," a principle applied in some circuits in the context of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule had been extended to retaliation claims under Title VII. For managers, human resources professionals and the like, in order to engage in protected activity and garner protection from retaliation, the rule required the employee to "step outside his or her role of representing the company."

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

August 27, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reminded this writer that you could still learn something new about the law every day. Even in an area that you are a supposed expert. This time, it was a decision regarding the so-called "manager rule," a principle applied in some circuits in the context of retaliation claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule had been extended to retaliation claims under Title VII. For managers, human resources professionals and the like, in order to engage in protected activity and garner protection from retaliation, the rule required the employee to "step outside his or her role of representing the company."

By Jeffrey Campolongo

7 minute read

July 24, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Attorney fees. There are few things in the practice of law that are as sacrosanct as payment for the professional guidance we provide to our clients, whether the matter is a billion-dollar complex acquisition by a multinational conglomerate or drafting a simple will. As lawyers we tend to be very self-aware, perhaps even sensitive, when it comes to being paid what we deem a reasonable amount for our time and attention to our craft. For those of us who practice in the employment law world where there is a statutory fee-shifting provision, we tend to be even more in tune to legal issues affecting how we are paid. That is why two recent decisions from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued merely a day apart have prompted some curious head-scratching by practitioners.

By Jeffrey Campolongo

9 minute read