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

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."

HR director has no retaliatory discharge claim based on dismissal during her investigation of internal discrimination complaint

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

In our last newsletter, we observed that courts have increasingly been restricting retaliation claims, by circumscribing recognized employee "participation" in proceedings under the discrimination laws and employee "opposition" to unlawful discrimination

EEOC subpoena for fitness test information not enforced

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

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in its investigations of charges, often seeks records far beyond those relating merely to the charging party and his or her allegations. When an employer resists an EEOC subpoena, it typically results in a court action for the subpoena's enforcement

Unemployment benefits awarded to medical marijuana user fired for positive drug test results

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2011

The Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that the evidence presented by an employer at a claims hearing fell short of proving a sufficient basis for the denial of unemployment benefits to a discharged medical marijuana user who tested positive in an employer's drug screen

In landmark case, Colorado Court of Appeals rules ex-worker with business’ trade secrets may not solicit former customers

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2011

In Colorado, contracts that prohibit a former employee from soliciting the former employer's clients or customers are deemed "non-compete" covenants

SOX extended to public corporation’s non-public subsidiary, despite claim arising before Dodd-Frank

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 9 2011

In past newsletters, we've discussed how the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub

Employee’s opposition to LBGTQ community: protected religious belief or unprotected bigotry?

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

The lines between employees' protected religious beliefs and employees' unprotected opinions on social issues are often blurry