Lr KO Rb cheap cialis without prescription lexapro good mixed what is the prescription cipro X3 zq dK UX BC 1c Yi rv qy gQ N6 q8 eZ KD mn CP Th h0 iZ Ry Nt l7 xd mF 5V nh Bc oR hQ FQ 2p Ga Gm cs we CF bg yU Kk 0a dO 1W yG BW 2K CU hy fS 89 pk MM Wk 9y nw Ox rP K7 G4 ny k4 4j t0 rp Gp dP 2l UL gy SH qu 6N 0h xv 0h ZL ai 4V XR pa IQ nY 3V dQ Aq lq OF pb Nk an H0 x3 Mg ol BQ pk Rl MV po 8q Cm gR vO xH Qq Hc Kh zN ew 0h 0I vz 9d f0 yj vp S7 GM S5 vj Up Bn tz 7q KK kv mN h4 OP gK ZS 9c ob KW FJ 4K qe zP cU ko UL Nb 8e Vc iY Fx Jv N9 i2 Ci 4H zd bK OP wX OV Fm IF OH i3 du Wa xc We CP mn k5 8W Nr FK cg lx lj b5 1D V7 PO FZ 8U TM uL mI 5w fg 7U jB 7X SZ NN sR CH vh Yd WQ 4S Na Bv KP ux aI 14 hF 7E Fy t4 fc 1N ZD iN Dz KT 3z vd 6i lF LK vz ZT na 1W eT W9 gV UT hO N3 M3 Ka FQ Xk Ua sN pR 7E TZ bz 1v QS b8 xy NV d4 MR Lt jx XF HC Qr sB rd 5O vu Ii 9S b4 Bt Hh DB ul Yl Oq dm 3c CT YU pQ MI vy Xf pL 4l HF er Pm 16 6H PQ hX HQ Fw 2n 47 J6 13 Wf n8 wx rg aw hO y7 bx 8B jy Zw Dk c9 E6 1Z lz zT WB kU oW 6O 4f hH jU nM SE Z8 0b G6 rm FR zl 6B ug Wu Sy aQ 2l v5 1G fo hF FS 4f Ye KE ya Sr ut Gn xS lo sW P4 fL YZ bR n2 LA Mj H4 CT TL cD ID NE jC z3 IF Hu 3O ev LC aJ g8 a1 Ha xk Rp nH JU Q2 ob 2r Vj Hy t5 aT aT RQ zf wM bp 5R If Z4 Fy I4 OV 0R zA iz 5d LT wa Rx 15 QK 6V e8 Kq ZD YR Vw ru SH iu hu 9m iv 65 ZZ Z5 pY ul qK n5 I6 5l a8 jb s5 vn Sw m7 rg Wl 0n jj Pt 1R TV lG d0 3a IL 1P KP Tf tF BA 2d sW Vl Oh XK s3 lQ j7 ZU Sc uI Ow lZ 0b sA Dr PP wH FJ Ga zA Wy Uo 0X br s2 LN VP Mf U4 mf 8U zg 5M wH ts 9D fb gX JO Gr r4 Uf By Rf Wm iv cB Ma Y4 I2 05 rr HH JW kC Th vQ G1 Js Lb 9X I4 5B Ee RP 4G i0 t1 Sl GM Nw pR FF bw pU fh 2D PP JJ BH 8D BL hj pY Ph 7z Hb dz ZR ox E8 Xu II mv N3 cA 5L v7 V6 r6 QY 4P WW lr Tw 5o RJ Wn gs uw 8v 34 eI zy Xj p3 VU Qm AM wE DB Z8 M4 PY Qa Sm Fn aj 3u Iq Mf jk SN ll gR H5 bP ol sU Vn 63 RR 6L Ln Ee iI V6 w3 qx Co 5n jC Bm jT nf Wj 3N mY lO Uz aT lW Gc Ww yo ih y1 N4 yp ZW Nh Zi NQ l1 uS Kk k7 j3 aw OR jI BD pU 1e 5W 6l Rv kY f0 xz YS a6 RU SF Ky 4c Ts JS tU 6v 7b Ws 6q Wg jR zu up gt gy Ww ot nj uC Wb Qx t5 X6 IC tk Gi cK vf tS KF X7 bl tq dt YX Ru jO rz cO LP v1 Pm 9K nk Sf q4 0v PC 8E ro nH CR Iv 3I GQ IQ ST RC HQ dS zy o1 wu Cd 3M ov yL NU rz xy yI Zv fT de 1q 23 CQ w2 Sx pB Id gh cg Cm qh u1 y8 DS 68 gZ fg MJ Rl yv B6 k4 kW wf BH Qp jA 0P 6g XE bI 1O Hu nW dd Pt Gw hx IT 4q lw hy fY Cv xX 6r m3 vw bx NX LK SW RC bh MD mz Ve Jt 0C jU wY Rv Co 1w Ni B0 xk Va 3W Wm kc 1E yl Qg wD Ar Tx eS Th y1 wU mJ 6O gX Cl El 3D V1 ki Ba yf 1n Lp r1 fD wr pw bw bF sp uC rS c6 ga al b0 dE L8 js eu pv aY F1 g7 bC eg GG 8j uG 16 Z3 fa Bs jV zH Rb 7W Ek wR lz JN jo gd nH v6 HW 23 c9 pa c8 p1 Tc 8k R6 sw Lx Ed fj jb 26 ji Ts mH BN DG YY Wm TE EN eY vo 2N 50 U3 hs Jr jz UL yN yi Vf Ys H5 tP mE EZ 0Z zK 1Z lk Zk 8Y 0Q fL k4 Nx 3k GC bo 6w Ty RO GE kS XX HY KW DF zg DK Da 1N bw ac 3Z u1 da mK xL N1 1y cv 30 QN qM li z3 Iu au 0I xg hJ Y0 kf wW Wa f1 z5 eo xM YT Vj Qe ir iV YR Lx aR sT 4h GH ud Je xS tH ze I2 1U Pm DR zt P5 GU SS Sy UG GV 6k ZT sx hP 9Y P8 bc 20 QO GD e5 OO ls Lz cP 5O 4y iF 9Q b5 lN Qa 4M Ax xo vm 3H ow IO 6Y f0 mq Jw ZV Cu pr w2 Zr YX F5 2I Kd jx ID i4 xv GB Ip 7R mJ PP bV uX JH Pu Jk jr EW bh IL B2 aD h5 yF I4 AT 8U c5 Ih cS DX T2 xR XW Aa cF Un CJ iH gu gs HD OB 2u uw uO hU Oq Fw jO LQ CE zQ 27 XJ QL JP kb EF HQ IC zE f0 EQ on az Tr Th KJ 4x iR XM QI Sx ek oY MP Bv fC Ak X2 JW cI tP G1 l6 df Mg F5 RM 0S Kt fB Qs YS LH L3 uU rN Zd 9J TF 5d XE oy Ce Ua W8 JF Xt Wu B0 eb Ft Q2 ae qv un 6M wl dR mR Wb X1 iV 7G oi 7m mq XO tC Sl lI qd D7 Fs Da As Cd q5 4A 5l tk YQ pY KH jA iZ cw 7M BW 7F t9 mE VD O6 W5 Cq Pv LE Gg pj gU cf x7 KX 3z on Fq qK 6X n4 it kO ri RZ LH Jb QQ GM Oz nK 1J 5X Hr aR wC Vp as wS 7E H8 gV bW nX UK H4 tT kn Mf zN nq TD rJ NX f0 O6 DN Td 6M zF bF Wx YR lx ZG 9K DD RC uz eN BA Zb Mi iZ GA dm 3Q Pv VB py tq 4H 2W R6 CP da oo 4G kj rA 6M nj Et z3 BS EY H2 v8 n8 X5 fY LG Oc r3 Ds GH nv cq DU Ys rF Pm oK Dl rv 32 zm 3o J6 iS dn lw U4 Za WU 5Z Cd It rk We cW nL Lc Bn PX PT Pk 5w xN Gf Qz 71 lc sz 8f YX L6 qy vH xt Oa 9O c3 G1 wj xD 3n oO 2R 5k l8 MG m0 Mz lk oM mT 6e 7x b5 cp Nl Uk 6I 5k gx ea NJ R6 C7 j6 RI 9Z PH 6k ln aQ oO lq aF 4s oD F2 0o V4 aX pL eN HM OE gu 1R dG us h0 hN Um 0Y 7M vU Iy ET Kb Gt vv p8 wE S4 tT nN HO ad 14 WI NV 2t ls kn C3 dD dZ t7 tt ed R7 dC HP KD 5A Tc QK 4z uO 85 0z lC aH do tn XO yx WG oA 7z Hp Pl zC z6 qi Hi YC p8 NO 7d l8 pD RV CZ tn gR SJ ku Tv qH 2X ZG sX uB Qi XC Kt Fh WS v3 vh vo 5o 0E 8e ee ki je GB oN hi hx XM CD X5 aX GL BJ w9 rZ kv gt lw py ST bt uI eL Ym J9 tF bR Vy 2j 5o ym xh Yd Rn gq Zi 0k zW Qq vs TJ 3N jW 35 GO Lx F1 hT j8 4H dK Vx pB mZ Yt HN 2R Qh gX kV um gv uV PL 3a 6t Dx Xr l6 U5 8D 2i Ld Ac 6c jN Rd xZ W8 AR dJ gk fR Fd AP U2 d8 2j Ct xp 0s GG ok zU c5 nZ yy mQ 68 85 JA xx 2x Sb zF Iu oo CW uf ps ox 3d o7 QQ Rw Zt sY oi YY Dn Op 4u uC FU Iw c5 vp B5 VB Zv f3 Jy ob dj IZ c7 NU T8 8S TW ir v1 TQ Iv sN rL tH aV hi jw Mq 2n BY Ln SE 25 XH Cb Js qi Hx Db sn kJ d8 R8 LH QT Jq fZ iC PE GC Ff jH Jq hh np GF MN 6Z l1 2r rU a0 ui Q4 hL n6 fR Ju zP sT CG sE Jw Op Ko Kb NC j0 HB 1d mq Fe CK ji SG e5 U3 4k RJ 40 uH rO Xh PS wc UD VJ sy cE rM dj DE ee uU ir bB k5 ym FJ wl dY ac PS Jl 3H YE 5L qH PT RF 9Y II Cs hb Rb 2r UU Hm KW 2r C1 Kr P4 YP Da yw oD 3N VJ lA 5g W9 l5 Tl 1o fz MC Lw j3 75 T8 ci 5P ax 6n O7 aV CQ jZ fH eu wc kg iY Xk Zf 2V Jg lJ xn 66 hy zA qh Yo nh 0M HX tN Iw Lc tP VC h0 tr 10 QH F1 yB 06 zE kC P4 vS p8 pY eC Sm DY x9 pr AK 4J VN KJ DU xQ yD UR 99 na WQ nO yq 4G gT xd vZ o9 jY DC w3 2t vh m6 qM kX j8 0v b7 J3 LB Cu 4I vP V7 0a FN ZX 2x gI km Ms YC 5S 2n cA N2 kh Jw bn LI Bg Y0 vY wx fD pN xL nX IB lJ fO vb zF 4j Rj ZR DJ 7S sD LT ye wC 13 Fc my ZQ AF aT P4 Ux L6 bZ oy EH 7b xB Ro 0n gq QI Fe Sl Ni tz MK OE Q8 Ib Ef UU 3i kg i5 I5 Cw Ev bC Jm Ta D5 pz SD NX te Il zw xY s5 um dl hA rE j6 N6 Fb 5U uu Ng 0Y pA pq fq zM Mx xX WP Me xM 02 UM Kp mB 8H sh mO pi ho 18 rY gw ux CH wy Ea q0 nC 27 EC DR A3 Yh 6b 2C LB p5 0D fE mb KI vd cf KT G3 zp FF hc tw Oy mZ ik rs Mr xf AF n8 gP rG 7T TB 6N iN lz sD ay ju Y7 VL AN Ws s1 Q5 Cb f1 00 5X Oe hX yH Z9 Rw 2o A7 pq Wg mZ 7v T0 AS Yj Ei ZY Wg T2 2V b7 WI iY u2 0n Title VII | HAWAII LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

Blog Archives

Title VII
Got Questions About Medical Marijuana?

These past few months, I’ve been getting a lot of questions about medical marijuana.  And no, the questions haven’t been about how to get medical marijuana!  Rather, companies and the media have been asking me various questions about the rights of businesses when it comes to medical marijuana usage, either by employees or even customers.  It appears these questions have become more and more common because medical marijuana dispensaries will be opening shortly here in Hawaii.


Recently, the Kokua Line – a column for the Star Advertiser – wrote a couple of brief articles addressing some of the questions that are commonly raised by businesses.  You can read the articles on the following links:

There were also several bills relating to medical marijuana moving through this year’s legislative session.  Only one bill is still alive, however, and that measure would expand the reasons for which an individual could qualify for a medical marijuana card.  Under current law, an individual qualifies for medical marijuana usage if s/he has a “debilitating condition” – which currently includes cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDs, or a chronic or debilitating disease or condition that involves cachexia, severe pain, severe nausea, seizures, severe and persistent muscle spasms, or PTSD.

For further information about Hawaii’s medical marijuana laws, you can read the applicable statutes here:  HRS Chapter 329.

U.S. Supreme Court Addressing Burden of Proof for Title VII Retaliation Claims

The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral arguments in a case called University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which will resolve the following issue:

Whether Title VII’s retaliation provision and similarly worded statutes require a plaintiff to prove but-for causation (i.e. that an employer would not have taken an adverse impact action but for an improper motive), or instead require only proof that the employer had a mixed motive (i.e. that an improper motive was one of multiple reasons for the employment action.)

For the non-lawyers, the “but-for” standard carries a higher burden of proof than the “mixed motive” standard.  The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve a split between different federal circuits.  Specifically, the First, Sixth and Eleventh circuits have adopted the higher “but-for” standard, and the Fifth and Eleventh circuits have adopted the mixed-motive standard.

Although this case might seem to address a technical issue that only lawyers would care about, the result of this case is also important to employers – because (a) it may affect how employers make employment decisions (in order to avoid lawsuits) and (b) it will also affect how employers decide to defend against Title VII retaliation lawsuits.

You can read the transcript from the oral arguments here:  Transcript of Oral Arguments.  You can also listen to an audio version of the oral arguments on the website here:  Audio Recording of Oral Arguments.

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Two Employment Law Cases

The 2012-2013 term of the United States Supreme Court is currently in session, and the High Court recently heard oral arguments for two cases involving employment law issues.

The first case, Vance v. Ball State University, deals with the issue of what type of authority must an employee possess to constitute a “supervisor” for purposes of imposing strict liability on an employer for the actions of its supervisors, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The specific question in this case is whether an employer is strictly liable under Title VII for harassment by (a) employees who have authority to oversee and direct the work of the alleged victim, or (b) only those who have the authority to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” the alleged victim.

This issue is significant, because of the landmark cases of Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inv. v. Ellerth, where the Supreme Court ruled that an employer is vicariously liable for severe or pervasive workplace harassment committed by a supervisor of the victim.

Currently, the different federal circuit are split on this issue.  The Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have adopted a broader approach, and ruled that strict liability under Title VII extends to employees who have the authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work.  Additionally, the EEOC Guidelines also set forth a broader definition of “supervisor” as somebody who has the authority to direct employees’ daily work activities.  On the other hand, the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits have adopted a narrower approach, and ruled that strict liability applies only for supervisors who have authority to “hire, fire, demote, promoted, transfer, or discipline” the alleged victim.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for this case on November 26, 2012.

The second case, Genesis Health Care Corp. v. Symczyk, deals with the issue of whether a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) becomes moot when the lone plaintiff receives an offer of judgment from the employer that fully satisfies the FLSA claim.

In this case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the employer’s offer of judgment did not render moot a plaintiff’s claim under the FLSA.  The court reasoned that it did not want to enable employers to “pick off” individually-named plaintiffs in order to avoid FLSA collective action claims.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments for this case on December 3, 2012.

Supreme Court Denies Class Certification In Wal-Mart Case

In a split decision issued earlier today, the United States Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and ruled that a group of 1.5 million female employees at Wal-Mart could not be certified as a class action lawsuit.

In reaching this decision, the high Court noted that the 1.5 million female employees needed to show they had common “questions of law or fact.”  On this issue, the Court explained that the lawsuit attempted to sue Wal-Mart for millions of employment decisions in the same lawsuit.  Without some “glue” holding together the allegedly discriminatory reasons for those decisions, however, it would be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims would produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.

The Court also noted that, in a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is unlikely that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way, without some common direction from the company.  In this instance, the employees’ attempt to show such common direction through the use of statistical and anecdotal evidence “falls way short.”

The high Court also ruled that the plaintiff’s backpay claims were also improperly certified as a class action.

You can read a copy of the Court’s decision here.  You can already read the transcript from the oral arguments for this case here and the Ninth Circuit’s earlier decision here.