Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Employees leave their current employers every day, presumably to pursue new and brighter career opportunities. This is especially true today, as the economy seems to be picking up pace and employers find themselves needing to expand their workforces. Inevitably, some employees will go to work for competitors of their former employers. While employees have the right to seek new and better jobs, the law is equally clear that they may not do so at the expense of their former employer's business interests.
Features
National cases of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The latest rulings you need to know.
Features
Mediation is not litigation. Many lawyers, though, approach mediation with courtroom techniques that may not advance their clients' interests. Today, when court-sponsored mediation is increasingly common, and especially where the parties are paying for the services of a professional mediator, you owe it to your clients to get the most out of the process. This article focuses on the mediation of employment disputes and identifies some of the most familiar pitfalls for lawyers. Avoid them, and your clients will come out of mediation with better results.
Avoiding litigation risks involves focus. One of the key areas of focus should be on hiring; more specifically, the application process. Over time, employers have found questions of what can, and cannot, be asked during an interview to be particularly troublesome. Similarly, use of consumer reports has proven equally concerning. While employers have struggled to find footing in these areas, an additional concern has risen: How to handle job applications submitted via the Internet.
Features
On April 20, 2004, the US Department of Labor (DOL) released its much-anticipated changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. The new rules revise the salary and duties tests used to determine whether an employee is entitled to overtime pay under federal law. Organized labor and other groups had criticized the DOL's proposed rules, claiming they would deny overtime pay to numerous employees who currently are entitled to such additional pay. The DOL appears to have taken into consideration some of the concerns voiced by the critics during the rulemaking process. The final rules were scheduled to be published in the April 23 Federal Register, and will take effect on Aug. 21, 2004.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in <i>McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co.</i> 513 U.S. 352 (1995), authorizing employers to contest back pay and front pay/reinstatement remedies if they acquire evidence during discovery that would have led to the plaintiff's termination irrespective of the disputed reason, employers have expanded the reach of their discovery efforts. The purpose: Find anything in the employee's background that the employer can argue would have led to the employee's termination anyway, thereby precluding the potentially costly remedies of back pay and front pay/reinstatement per the <i>McKennon</i> decision. This article posits some possible countermeasures for plaintiffs to employ in combating the "after-acquired evidence" defense.
Features
Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protect an employee regardless of his or her age, once that employee turns 40? The EEOC's regulation provides that it does, stating that the ADEA works both ways once someone reaches protected status at age 40. Finding this regulation "clearly wrong," the Supreme Court recently held in <i>General Dymanics Land Systems Inc. v. Cline</i>, 124 S. Ct. 1236 (2004), that the ADEA does not protect younger employees who are treated less favorably than older employees.
National rulings of importance to your practice.
An umbrella insurance policy that covers a company's employees while "acting within their duties" should cover a worker who drove out of town on a weekend in search of a company cell phone he'd lost -- even if he stopped for personal errands on the way home, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.