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
For employers, figuring out what constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII may seem elusive. In general, an adverse employment action is an ultimate employment decision that affects job duties, compensation or...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: An employee who expresses opposition to an employer’s policies and practices that affect members of the general public is not engaging in an activity that FEHA protects, because the activity is not opposing...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A divided panel of the Eighth Circuit recently decided that an employer may be required to assume or infer from the circumstances that an employee is seeking a reasonable accommodation – even when no...more
Last week, we wrote about the “Cat’s Paw” theory of liability —where a person is used unwittingly to accomplish another person’s discriminatory purpose in the workplace. A common example would be when a racist employee...more
Unlawful workplace retaliation can take several forms, and claims for retaliation arise under a number of different statutes and common law theories. Workers compensation statutes, for example, contain provisions that...more
It would never occur to most employers that "embarrassment" could serve as the grounds for a disability discrimination claim, but that's exactly what an employee attempted to argue in Lester v. City of Lafayette. In this...more
Moore v. Century Gaming Management, Inc., No. B249978 (June 4, 2014): The California Court of Appeal recently ruled in an employee’s favor in a suit in which she claimed that her employer interfered with her rights under the...more
Obviously, the simple answer is to not discriminate. But it also is important to have well-documented facts that support a business-related justification for the employer’s action and to demonstrate the plaintiff’s lack of...more
It now should be clear to employers in California that the litigation rules are different as to what must be presented in discrimination lawsuits to succeed. Notably, just last week, in Alamo v. Practice Management...more
Last week the Oregon Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kemp v. Masterbrand Cabinets, Inc., holding that the plaintiff’s common law wrongful discharge claim was not precluded by the statutory remedies then available under...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
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
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