Late yesterday (March 4, 2010), the Indiana Legislature passed, with overwhelming support, a bill prohibiting employers from keeping employees' legally-possessed firearms off their property, so long as the firearms are kept out of sight in a locked vehicle.
"Bring-your-gun-to-work" bill clears Indiana Legislature and awaits Governor's signature
Popular related articles
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
Shutting down corporate pick-pockets (Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP)
A 10-year employee accounting manager systematically transfers amounts via ACH to her personal checking account.
-
Employer wins “cat's paw” case (Foley & Lardner LLP)
On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee's "cat's paw" argument.
-
Massachusetts personnel records statute amended to require employers to notify employees when negative information is placed in personnel records (Goodwin Procter LLP)
Massachusetts recently enacted an economic development statute which contains an important amendment to the Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute, G.L. c. 149, § 52C.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
Shutting down corporate pick-pockets (Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP)
A 10-year employee accounting manager systematically transfers amounts via ACH to her personal checking account.
-
Employer wins “cat's paw” case (Foley & Lardner LLP)
On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee's "cat's paw" argument.
-
Massachusetts personnel records statute amended to require employers to notify employees when negative information is placed in personnel records (Goodwin Procter LLP)
Massachusetts recently enacted an economic development statute which contains an important amendment to the Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute, G.L. c. 149, § 52C.
-
D.C. Circuit decision ratchets up the risk for employers who use location tracking (Littler Mendelson PC)
Employers are increasingly tracking their employees' whereabouts as smartphones, laptops, and vehicles equipped with location-tracing technology become ever more prevalent.
-
Health reform Q&A for employers - update (Baker & Daniels LLP)
In the last two months, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services published three additional sets of interim final regulations to address compliance requirements in the first significant round of changes to impact group health plans under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
-
Product liability - CPSC online database is becoming a reality – are you ready? (Baker & Daniels LLP)
The Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) is poised to launch its online searchable database of "reports of harm" received by the Commission.
-
SSAP 96 (boring but important) (Baker & Daniels LLP)
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has new requirements for settlement of affiliated company transactions.
-
The 3 most important "missing" contract terms (Baker & Daniels LLP)
If your contract is missing the terms below, you are exposing your company to significant risk.
-
Marking products with now-expired patents is false marking if done with intent to deceive public (Baker & Daniels LLP)
The Federal Circuit continues to refine the law regarding false marking claims filed under 35 U.S.C. § 292.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.