The New EEOC Guidelines on Workplace Harassment
What's the Tea in L&E? Supervisor Liability: What Managers Need To Know
DOL’s Expanded Overtime Salary Limits, EEOC’s Sexual Harassment Guidance, NY’s Mandatory Paid Prenatal Leave - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? One Time Too Many: What is “Severe” Conduct?
Effective Harassment Trainings: Best Approaches With Insights from NCIS — Hiring to Firing Podcast
What's the Tea in L&E? Truth Hurts or Rumors? Lizzo’s Harassment Allegations Serve As A Good Reminder
Middle East Conflict Impact on the Healthcare Workplace: An HR Perspective
#WorkforceWednesday: Major Updates to New York State’s Model Sexual Harassment Prevention Policy - Employment Law This Week®
Predatory Behavior Alleged Against OSHA Addressed During Orange County Board of Education Board Meeting Led by Greg Rolen
The Speak Out Act and Compliance Programs
#WorkforceWednesday: Speak Out Act Takes Effect, Enhanced Data Privacy Obligations for California Employers, and SEC Releases Whistleblower Annual Report - Employment Law This Week®
Consensual With Consequences: Breaking Company Policies Without Breaking the Law
Burr Broadcast September 20, 2022
#WorkforceWednesday: Return-to-Work Behavior Policies, U.S. Soccer's Landmark Agreement, and Board Diversity in California - Employment Law This Week®
Hot Spots in Employment Law 2022
#WorkforceWednesday: New Law on Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Claims, Cyber War Ramps Up, Salaried Nonexempt Status - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VI-114-Banning Arbitration of Sexual Harassment/Assault Claims
Update and Discussion on Legal and Practical Issues
DE Under 3: OFCCP Contractor Portal & Request for Comments for Functional Affirmative Action Programs (FAAPs)
Labor & Employment Symposium - Topic: Taking a Deeper Dive into Enhanced Sexual Harassment Laws in Texas
In Acuff v. Dy N Fly, LLC, four female plaintiffs sued a franchisor of hair salons (Dy N Fly), two of its franchisees, and the owner of the two franchisees for wrongful retaliatory termination and sexual harassment in the...more
A Michigan federal district court denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan law, and claims alleging retaliatory termination and sexually hostile work...more
A federal court in Michigan recently denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss claims alleging that it was liable as a joint employer for claims under Title VII of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Michigan’s state...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The third key trend from our 16th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report involves governmental enforcement litigation, including an overview of priorities and filings by the EEOC, the U.S....more
Sunday’s release of a long-awaited Labor Department final rule on joint employment spells trouble for workers hoping to “sue large companies for wrongdoing by contractors or franchisees.” The rule reverses Obama-era policies...more
Franchisors should review their franchise agreements and practices to ensure they do not retain or exercise control over the particular aspects of their franchisees’ employment practices in light of a recent decision...more
The fight against joint employment of franchisors and franchisees took a small hit when the Western District of Pennsylvania (“Court”) chose to allow a franchisee’s employee’s suit to proceed. In Harris v. Midas, et. al., the...more
Lauded as one of the most important franchise cases in the recent past, Patterson v. Domino’s established a new standard for addressing vicarious liability issues in California. In reaching its decision that Domino’s was not...more
Timely Topics - A non-compete clause, covenant not to compete or restrictive covenant is a contract provision under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession, trade or business in competition...more
In order to sue under Title VII, plaintiffs must first file an administrative charge of discrimination against their employer with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In many cases, the charge misnames the actual...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued an important victory for franchisors, finding that a franchisor does not stand in an employment or agency relationship with the franchisee and its employees for purposes of holding...more
In This Issue: - SEC Pays First Whistleblower Award to Audit and Compliance Professional - Supreme Court Allows Affordable Care Act Contraceptives Religious Exemption - EEOC Adopts New Pregnancy...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Patterson v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. S204543 (Cal. Aug. 28, 2014) that a franchisor could not be held vicariously liable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act...more
Franchisor Is Not Liable For Franchisee's Alleged Sexual Harassment Of Its Employee - Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 2014 WL 4236175 (Cal. S. Ct. 2014) - Taylor Patterson was hired by Sui Juris (a franchisee...more
In a significant win for franchisors, the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that although Domino’s “imposes comprehensive and meticulous standards for marketing its trademarked brand and operating its franchises in a uniform...more
On August 28, 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in favor of Domino's Pizza and all business format franchisors that do business in California. In Patterson v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, ---P.3d---, 2014 WL...more
Taylor Patterson claimed that Domino’s, as the franchisor of thousands of pizza stores across the nation, should be held responsible for sexual harassment she experienced from a fellow employee over a two-week period when she...more