High court rules against steelworkers' claim
Class Action News
The Supreme Court says steelworkers do not have to be paid for time they spend putting on and taking off protective gear they wear on the job.
The court was unanimous Monday in ruling in favor of United States Steel Corp. over workers' claims that they should be paid under the terms of federal labor law for the time it takes them to put on flame-retardant jackets and pants, safety glasses, earplugs, hardhats and other equipment.
Justice Antonin Scalia said for the court that the labor agreement between the company and the workers' union says the employees don't get paid for time spent changing clothes. Scalia said most of the items count as clothing. He said earplugs, glasses and respirators are not clothing, but take little time to put on.
Related listings
-
2 killed in attack at German court
Class Action News 01/24/2014Two men were killed Friday in a shooting and stabbing at a court complex in Frankfurt in what may have been a revenge attack, authorities said. Frankfurt prosecutors said the case appeared to be linked to the fatal stabbing of a car dealer near Frank...
-
High court OKs Miss. lawsuit on LCD price fixing
Class Action News 01/16/2014The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Mississippi can pursue claims of price-fixing against a manufacturer of LCD screens in state court. The justices on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling that blocked the state-court suit against AU Optron...
-
Court weighs president's recess appointments power
Class Action News 01/13/2014The Supreme Court is refereeing a politically charged dispute between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over the president's power to temporarily fill high-level positions. The case being argued at the high court Monday is the first in th...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.