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

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

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

Is it worthwhile to fight unemployment benefits claims? Another reason to just say no

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

Understandably, employers are upset when ex-employees fired for good cause - especially acts of misconduct - file unemployment compensation claims

Individual liability recognized in “cat’s paw” race discrimination cases under Section 1981

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

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court formally recognized the so-called "cat's paw" theory of discrimination - that an employer is liable for unlawful discrimination if it takes any adverse action against a person based on a recommendation from a biased supervisor, even if the higher-ranking managers who make the decision on the action do so innocently

Employer's discriminatory actions and statements gave employee reasonable belief his application for promotion was "futile"; lack of application no bar to claim

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

To make a prima facie case of discrimination regarding non-promotion, the plaintiff typically must show that he or she applied for and was qualified for an open position the employer was seeking to fill

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."

Idaho court extends public policy protection to constructive discharges

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

By now, most employers recognize the risk of a wrongful discharge claim arising from an employee's dismissal for a reason that violates state public policy - typically, a discharge for the employee's performance of a legal duty, the employee's exercise of a legal right, or an employee's refusal to perform an illegal act

Conditioning light duty assignment for pregnant employee on dismissal of her EEOC charge was retaliation

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

In a case involving a scenario that was mishandled by the employer in too many ways to count, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that an employer's conversion of an unconditional light duty assignment to a pregnant employee, to an assignment conditioned on her withdrawal of her EEOC charge was a retaliatory act under Title VII

Making different severance benefit offers to dismissed employees may be unlawful discrimination

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

We repeatedly advise clients to adopt a severance pay plan setting forth the amounts of severance pay for departing employees, as well as the terms and conditions of such benefits, and to follow the plan consistently, rather than making different promises and offers of severance pay to different employees