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

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

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

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

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 the scope of protected “opposition” shrinking?

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

Section 704 of Title VII protects an employee from retaliation for "opposing" the employer's illegal discrimination or for "participating" in a proceeding raising a claim of discrimination banned by Title VII

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."

Property owners have no indemnification or other liability-shifting rights against consultants whose advice results in ADA Title III violations

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

Owners of "public accommodations" covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as public entities with facilities governed by Title II of the ADA, often rely on the advice of consultants for compliance with the ADA's accessibility requirements

MMPI was job-related and consistent with business necessity based on employee’s hostile conduct and independent psychologist’s recommendation

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 9 2013

Proclaiming that "statutory interpretation requires judges to use a little common sense," the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that

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

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