Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
E-mail has become a way of life. Its advantages in the business world are widely known: It is an inexpensive, easily distributed medium, which can be accessed, even wirelessly, almost instantaneously anywhere in the world. In this fast-paced global economy, these features are highly desired. E-mail in the workplace is a double-edged sword, however, and the problems associated with workplace e-mail, particularly in connection with litigation-related discovery, have been recognized with increasing frequency by courts and litigants around the country.
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized work force do not have the right to have a co-worker present at an investigatory interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
The defense of employment-related lawsuits is a significant expense for employers that, many times, cannot be avoided. At the same time, it is an expense that offers little return on investment for the employer. Despite the efforts of at least some courts to try to resolve these cases through early mediation or to move them faster through the system, claims of employment discrimination and other alleged wrongdoing in the workplace, often languish far too long.
Features
Suppose that you represent an employer that does not hire foreign nationals and is in an industry that does not lend itself to foreign workers. Does your client nevertheless have responsibilities under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)? The answer -- surprising to too many employers and attorneys -- is yes. The IRCA prohibits unfair immigration-related employment practices and makes all U.S. employers responsible for verifying the "employment eligibility" and "identity" of all employees hired to work in the United States after Nov. 6, 1986.
Features
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
If you have practiced employment law for more than a decade, you probably assume that Title VII does not cover transsexuals, transvestites or other transgendered individuals. It's simple: A lot of cases have held that "sex" discrimination does not extend beyond traditional notions of "male" and "female." Besides, an individual's sexual orientation is not protected under Title VII, so why should the transgendered be protected? Such an assumption is no longer necessarily valid. There appears to be a growing trend toward recognizing a cause of action for sex discrimination under Title VII when a transgendered employee suffers an adverse employment action.
Features
Recent rulings you need to know.
An employee who had never before complained about harassment quits and then files a sexual harassment constructive discharge claim with the EEOC. Can the employer prevail on the ground that the employee failed to take advantage of the employer's internal complaint procedure?