Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has provided a loud wake-up call to employers who wish to monitor employee communications. In <i>Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co, Inc. et al.</i>, the court held that the City of Ontario, CA, violated the state and federal constitutional privacy rights of its police officers when it reviewed their personal text messages.
Features
Part One of this article discussed the changes in New York Labor Law (NYLL) pertaining to commissioned sales personnel. The conclusion herein addresses the other changes made by the law.
In a ruling long awaited by the employment law sector, the California Supreme Court effectively rejected the use of most non-competition agreements in California. This article is an analysis of the ruling.
Employers who take action because there are rumors that a certain employee is "crazy," "psycho" or "nuts" often find themselves the subject of an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") lawsuit facing claims that they regarded the individual as mentally disabled. What's an employer to do?
Features
In light of recent aggressive enforcement efforts of New York's Labor Laws by both the New York State Attorney General's Office and the New York State Department of Labor ("NYSDOL"), prudent employers should consider the effect of these new enactments on their pay and leave practices and take action to ensure compliance.
Features
The Retraining and Notification Act ("WARN" or The Act) creates some uncertainty for employers because it contains two potentially conflicting definitions of the term "mass layoff" ' one that looks to a 30-day period and another that aggregates layoffs over a 90-day period. This article analyzes a recent ruling that addresses the problem.
Part One of this article, which appeared in the June issue of Employment Law Strategist, discussed proof of retaliation claims. The conclusion herein addresses what conduct is protected.
Staking out an exception to the general rule that the requirement to accommodate is normally triggered by a disabled employee's request, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said an employer must take action "if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled." <i>Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.</i>, 06-5486-cv.
While parents are not a protected class, claims based on an employee's status as a parent or nonparent may be pursued successfully under existing causes of action, frequently sex discrimination. Such claims ' often characterized as family responsibilities discrimination (FRD) ' rose over 400% between 1996 and 2005, according to a 2006 study by Hastings College of the Law's Center for WorkLife Law.
Features
This article includes discussion of the various approaches that jurisdictions have taken when providing legal protections for breastfeeding employees and establishing legal requirements for employers.