We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 119

Employee not eligible for FMLA leave still protected by non-discrimination provisions

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2012

Many employers offer leave of absence benefits to employees that supplement leaves of absence provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act

Employer’s intrusion into employee’s Facebook page may be invasion of privacy

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2012

A federal district court in New Jersey recently addressed a question about which employers have long speculated, but had no answer, whether an employee can successfully assert an invasion of privacy tort claim against an employer that makes unauthorized access to the individual's Facebook account

The declining value of non-disparagement provisions in separation agreements

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2010

When entering into settlements or release agreements with departing employees, some employers want to bargain "hard" for non-disparagement provisions

Tenth Circuit rules that ADA’s Title II does not reach employment discrimination

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 5 2012

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Colorado, recently ruled on an issue that appears destined to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court - whether an employee of a state or local governmental unit can pursue employment discrimination claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Employment practices liability insurance buyer beware!!!

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 2 2011

Many prudent employers - knowing that employment discrimination claims can be filed against them by applicants, employees, and former employees, and administrative agencies suing on their behalf - buy employment practices liability insurance

Employer directive that employee get unspecified “counseling” treated as unlawful “medical examination”

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2012

Heaven help the misguided employer who instructs an employee to go for unspecified "counseling."

EEOC is suing employers that use random alcohol tests with employees

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 3 2010

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer may not compel a current employee to undergo a medical exam or ask an employee whether he or she is disabled (or about the nature or severity of the employee's disability), unless the exam or inquiry is (1) job-related, and (2) consistent with business necessity

Employer may be liable under federal law for posting entries on employee's personal facebook page and twitter account - but what exactly is being protected?

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 3 2012

Employers continue to grapple with the limits of their rights, if any, with regard to the personal social media of their employees

Past education and experience may justify different pay rates for new hires, but not later pay rates for employees

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 1 2012

In pay discrimination cases - whether raised under the Equal Pay Act or Title VII - employers commonly justify pay disparities among employees by pointing to the differences in their education and work experience

Fragrance-free workplace policy & work at home may have been reasonable accommodations for employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to “Japanese Cherry Blossom”

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 6 2012

A federal court in Ohio recently ruled that an employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to perfumes and scented products could pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against her employer for not reasonably accommodating her disability, despite the many (albeit delayed) accommodations offered by her employer