In This Issue:

- Ohio Supreme Court Reverses Decision on Surviving Merger Entity’s Ability to Enforce Noncompetition Agreements

- “Sweet” Decision for California Employers: Court Approves Time Rounding in Case Against See’s Candy

- Union Has No Duty to Disavow Threatening Statements Made by Its Members on its Facebook Wall During a Strike

- NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel Provides Further Guidance on At-Will Employment Acknowledgements in Employee Handbooks

- Even When Unions’ Information Requests Are Irrelevant, Companies Commit Unfair Labor Practices by Failing to Object in a Timely Manner

- Newark, New Jersey Joins Growing Number of States and Cities Restricting the Use of Applicants’ Criminal History

- Employers May Offer Unpaid Leave to Exempt Employees in Only Full-Day Increments

- California Supreme Court Upholds Laws Protecting Union Picketing

- California Supreme Court Limits Remedies in Mixed-Motive Cases

- Attorney Contacts in the Labor and Employment Group

- Excerpt from California Supreme Court Limits Remedies in Mixed-Motive Cases:

In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, No. S181004 (Feb. 7, 2013), the California Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s ruling that, even if an employer’s decision to terminate an employee substantially is motivated by discriminatory intent, a plaintiff will be denied a damage and back pay award, as well as reinstatement, under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, if the employer can prove that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the discriminatory motive.