On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court decided, in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 2006 WL 1458026, 24 IER Cases 737, that public employees do not enjoy First Amendment protections when speaking in the course of their official duties. While drawing strong reactions as a restriction on the free speech rights of government whistleblowers, the ruling may also be viewed in a different light ' as giving public whistleblowers the same rights as private ones.
Most companies have taken care to ensure that new and departing employees have completed Human Resource files with nondisclosure agreements, non-competition agreements (where applicable), invention and assignment agreements and various other agreements, acknowledgements and forms. Are companies doing enough to protect themselves from intellectual property theft by departing employees and consultants?
With increasingly longer military leaves (since 2001, the National Guard's deployment policy has shifted from a 6-month to a 24-month maximum service overseas), companies must understand their legal obligations under military leave laws, specifically the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Employers must be aware of what happens before, during and after their employees take military leave.
National cases of interest to you and your practice.
Rulings of interest.
Unfortunately, attempting to achieve the worthy goal of increasing workplace diversity through ad hoc decisions that advance women or minorities, often made in the absence of, or without strict adherence to, a formal affirmative action plan, can spawn claims of illegal reverse discrimination. Such claims appear to be on the rise.
In the May 2006 issue of Employment Law Strategist, Marc Engel considered the virtues of mediation and the positive outcomes a successful mediation experience can create. In this second of a two-part series, he elaborates on specific steps that can be taken to make a mediation successful.
As American companies struggle to compete in a global market, they are increasingly considering the merits of eliminating or reducing costly retiree benefits. For many companies, the costs of these benefits have become staggering. For example, before recently announcing plans to freeze health benefits for tens of thousands of its white-collar retirees, Ford Motor Co. was facing health-care expenses of more than $3.5 billion. Its rival, General Motors, which according to recent reports owes a projected $89 billion in welfare and pension benefits to its current and future retirees, just announced that it will offer workers with 10 years' experience a payment of $140,000 and a pension, if in return these workers will leave their employment and forgo health care benefits.
We want to know how we can make this newsletter an even better resource for your professional needs. Are we covering all you want to see? Are there sections you would like to see enhanced or replaced?
Your views and opinions are essential in our effort to continue to provide you with the top notch News, Strategy and Analysis you have come to expect from Law Journal Newsletters.
Help us help you! Please click here to complete a short survey or type the following URL into your browser: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=604771980045.
Your answers will assist us in making this an even better newsletter for you! Thank you.
Regards,
Colin Graf
LJN Marketing Director
National rulings you need to know.
