California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination (Podcast)
California Employment News: Considerations for Employment Termination
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 9: Best Practices for Employers with John Saxon, Plaintiff’s Labor & Employment Attorney
#WorkforceWednesday: Termination Meetings on the Record - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Professional Breakup Advice: Convey Your Reason for Separation (or Termination)
Patient Steering and Charting
Employers: Benefits Considerations Post-Pandemic [More with McGlinchey Ep. 3]
I-21 – Sexual Harassment (Still), Political Tweeting, and Intersectional Discrimination
Episode 24: EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum Part I: Employers' "Superstar Harassment" Problem
I-17 – Engaging Your Employees in Today’s Workplace, Featuring Rick Turner at Whirlpool Corporation
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
I-13 – Policies, Policies, Policies, and Microchips Embedded in Employees
Day 22 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-10 Questions to Better Operationalize Compliance
Day 15 of One Month to Better Compliance Through HR-Employment Separation Issues
Episode 11: Legal and Business Issues Stemming From Employees' Out-of-Work Conduct
Warning Signs that Signal You Might be Terminated from Your Job
Friedman: Abramson Dismissal a 'Teachable Moment' for Companies
What is Wrongful Termination in Arizona?
Protecting Trade Secrets When Employees Depart
Employer's DEI mandate scores a win. A white guy refused to take his employer's mandatory "unconscious bias" training, and he was fired. He sued the employer for retaliation, his lawsuit was dismissed, and this week an...more
In unusual circumstances arising during unionization campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board can seek a so-called Section 10(j) injunction to immediately order the employer or union to cease illegal acts associated with...more
“Third party” or “associational” retaliation is reprisal taken by an employer against someone other than the person who engaged in “protected conduct.” In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s anti-retaliation...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that an employee who blows the whistle under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) does not need to show that their employer had retaliatory intent to find...more
Tackling the tricky issue of how a plaintiff proves an employer's “intent,” in an opinion issued today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, corporate whistleblowers have...more
On May 1, 2023, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC.1 There, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that an employee whistleblower suing under the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to settle a split among federal appeal courts on whether former employees are covered by whistleblower anti-retaliation protections contained in the False Claims Act (FCA). United States ex...more
The holidays have come and gone. I hope everyone enjoyed them, and I hope everyone received the gifts and presents they asked for. I come from a big family—three siblings, 14 aunts and uncles, and nearly twenty cousins....more
In a decision in favor of the University of Pennsylvania entered on August 7, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the “but for” standard for liability under University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v....more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions Monday affecting Title VII cases....more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court rejected a lower standard of proof for employee retaliation claims under Title VII, finding that a lower causation standard could tempt poorly performing employees to file frivolous claims...more
Title VII retaliation claims must be proven according to traditional “but for” causation principles, and not the less strict “motivating factor” standard applicable to other claims under the Statute, the U.S. Supreme Court...more
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued two highly-anticipated decisions. In Vance v. Ball State University, the justices considered whether the “supervisor” liability rule established by Supreme Court...more
On January 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court was petitioned to rule on whether employees must file a new or amended charge to pursue an employment retaliation claim arising from an initial Title VII discrimination charge....more