The Labor Law Insider: Whistleblower Breaks Details of NLRB Mail Ballot Election Abuse
What's the Tea in L&E? Why You Need Policies for Temps and Other Contractors
Fintech Focus Podcast | Managing a Workforce in a Regulated Environment
(Podcast) California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
California Employment News: Understanding ADA/FEHA Requirements and the Interactive Process
Exploring Employment Law Across Borders: Italy vs. US With White Lotus — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 31: Trade Secrets and Protecting Confidential Information with Jennie Cluverius of Maynard Nexsen
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Are "Furries" Protected in the Workplace?
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Back to School: 3 Essential Employee Trainings
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 30: Plaintiff Legal Trends with Paul Porter of Cromer, Babb & Porter
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: OSHA Clarifies Work-Relatedness of Employee Injuries While Traveling
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Lopez v. Whirlpool Corp. reminds employers and employees alike that an employer may not be liable for co-worker sexual harassment when the complaining employee resigns...more
2019 Update: In 2018, PETERKA & PARTNERS drafted the following chapter on what Slovakian companies need to know about sexual harassment in the workplace. In 2019, the ILN asked firms to consider the response following #MeToo...more
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: WHAT US: MULTI-STATE COMPANIES NEED TO KNOW - We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. 2019 Update - In the wake the of the #MeToo...more
2019 Update - The #MeToo movement, which has grown international in scope, is a wide-ranging campaign to shed light on the occurrence of sexual assault and harassment, particularly in the workplace. The movement began in...more
What constitutes sexual harassment? Sexual harassment occurs if someone shows verbal, non verbal or physical behavior with sexual connotation which aims at and results in the affection of the dignity of the other person....more
Hospital Supervisors Refused Accommodation for Deaf Employee, Federal Agency Charges - SANTA FE, N.M. - Christus Health, doing business as Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe, N.M., violated federal...more
We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. IMPACT OF #METOO IN INDIA – WHAT HAS CHANGED In July of last year, we covered critical aspects of sexual harassment laws in India under...more
What constitutes sexual harassment? In the Hungarian law, sexual harassment is covered by the general definitions of harassment stipulated by the Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal treatment (“Equal Treatment Act”) and by the Act C...more
We include the 2018 chapter in its entirety for reference following the 2019 update. UK update 2019 - The #MeToo movement continues to encourage women to speak out about unacceptable behaviours that they encounter at...more
What constitutes sexual harassment? Sexual harassment is any undesirable conduct of a sexual nature, expressed either by words or deeds, which has the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, especially when...more
Under Title VII, employers are generally strictly liable for harassing conduct by supervisors. In its Faragher and Ellerth decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a limited defense for employers accused of supervisor...more
You’re young, embarking on a career and very attracted to a co-worker who flirts with you at your new job. You’re sure the two of you were made for each other and, after all, you’re only human. So, you boost the courage to...more
California has had yet another banner year closing the 2017 legislative session with a spate of new employment laws imposing additional compliance obligations on employers. Bucking the anti-regulatory tide in Washington, DC,...more
As all hospitality employers know, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” However, the statute does not specifically mention sexual orientation or gender identity. What does...more
Employers should take note of the position Fox News is in due to the proliferation of recent lawsuits against the network by numerous current and former employees. To be clear and fair, the lawsuits only involve allegations...more
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions - Court Limits Definition of “Supervisor” Under Federal Anti-Discrimination Law - In Vance v. Ball State University (June 24, 2013), in a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Supreme...more
By the end of this year’s term, the United States Supreme Court had issued three “employer-friendly” decisions. While the decisions do not dramatically alter the employment law landscape, employers will still welcome the...more
On June 24, the Supreme Court issued two new opinions in favor of employers, both five-to-four decisions that narrowly construe the scope of Title VII’s retaliation and employer liability rules and significantly raise the bar...more
In another favorable ruling for employers, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar clarified that employees must satisfy a higher “but for” standard of proof to prevail in a Title VII...more
On June 24, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued two employer-friendly opinions that substantially narrow potential liability for claims of supervisor misconduct and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...more
On Monday, we blogged about the first of two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Today, we’ll...more
On June 24, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions in two cases which are clear victories for employers. First, in Vance v. Ball State University, the Supreme Court held that “an employer may be vicariously liable for...more
In Vance v. Ball State University, No.11-556, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ball State, making it harder for employees to sue employers for harassment under Title VII. ...more
Two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its 2012-13 term, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar and Vance v. Ball State University, will significantly alter the landscape of employment...more