The Basics of Michigan’s Social Media Password Law & Why It Isn’t Such a Great Idea
Effective October 1, 2013, Nevada employers will be prohibited from discriminating or taking an adverse employment action against an individual who is a member of the Communist Party. +2013 Bill Text NV S.B. 506....more
On June 10, 2013, the Seattle City Council passed an ordinance significantly restricting private employers’ ability to rely on criminal background checks to screen applicants for jobs in the City of Seattle. If Mayor McGinn...more
On May 23, 2013, Nevada became the tenth state to enact legislation restricting the use of credit background checks by employers. The new Nevada law goes into effect on October 1, 2013....more
Termination and other adverse employment actions often give rise to claims of intentional discrimination and other litigation. In many cases, the issues will boil down to an assertion that the facts supporting the employer’s...more
Alabama has become the most recent state to adopt a “bring your gun to work law,” with Governor Robert Bentley signing a firearms-related bill into law on May 22, 2013. The law takes effect August 1, 2013. The law will impact...more
Recently, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, which addresses the causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII. The Supreme Court has already held...more
On April 19, 2013, Colorado Governor John W. Hickenlooper signed into law Senate Bill 13-018 (the "Employment Opportunity Act"), which will significantly restrict the ability of Colorado employers to use “consumer credit...more
Effective August 1, 2013, North Dakota employers of voluntary emergency responders may not take unfavorable employment action - such as terminate, demote or discriminate - against employees who are on leave for more than 20...more
In a recent opinion, the Second Circuit adopted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) rule imputing employer liability when a worker reports harassment by a nonemployee. The case, Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 2013...more
We have reported in past newsletters that, because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is worded differently from Title VII and other discrimination laws, a plaintiff in an ADEA case must prove that age discrimination...more
The Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s whistleblower provisions may present a hazard for unsuspecting employers. On February 27, 2013, the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) released an...more
An Ontario employer has been ordered to pay 24 weeks’ wages to a 12-week probationary employee who was fired after complaining about numerous safety issues with a company truck he was driving which hauled steel....more
In a brief but notable decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in an employer’s favor on causation grounds in a SOX whistleblower retaliation case. Kim v. The Boeing Co., 487 Fed. Appx. 356 (9th Cir. 2012)....more
In the recent case of Onyango v. Berkeley Solicitors, the UK Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that an employee was allowed to bring a ‘whistleblowing’ claim relating to a protected disclosure that was made after the...more
An Illinois Appellate Court recently found that the Illinois Whistleblower Protection Act (740 ILCS § 174/1, et seq.) (IWA) does not require that the employee’s disclosure is the first, or only, disclosure of a violation of a...more
In Dos Santos v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 2012-AIR-20 (ALJ Jan. 11, 2013), an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) examined whether the facts alleged by the complainant required a territorial or...more
In a partial victory for employers, the California Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. City of Santa Monica that even when an employee proves that a discriminatory motive was a “substantial factor” in an adverse employment...more
On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more
According to a new California Supreme Court opinion, once an employee claiming discrimination demonstrates that a discriminatory reason for his or her termination substantially motivated an adverse employment decision, the...more
In Harris v. City of Santa Monica, +2013 Cal. LEXIS 941 (2013), the California Supreme Court considered a mixed motive discrimination case in which an employer had both lawful and unlawful reasons for terminating an employee....more
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an intriguing case regarding whether an employer can be held liable even if it has a legitimate reason for making an adverse employment decision. The Court announced on January 18 that it...more
Late last year, Michigan became the fourth state in the country restricting employers from asking employees for their passwords to social media sites. Though most agree this isn’t a thing employers should do, save for rare...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment in a closely watched FLSA retaliation case based on circumstantial evidence of a causal nexus between protected...more
Employees suing for discrimination have to prove that they suffered an adverse employment action, right? Maybe not, according to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Litton v. Talawanda School District, No. 10-3559...more
Most employers rely upon their employees to project a certain image to the public. In an effort to control their company’s image, employers may institute appearance policies that set forth grooming and dress standards. These...more
JD Supra gets your content noticed, increases your visibility and makes your marketing efforts hassle free...
Learn More or Schedule a demo
