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 99

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

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

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."

Offer letter: whole show or just a preview?

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 3 2013

Most of the time, employers don't intend offer letters to cover all the material subjects about the employment relationship. After an offer has been

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

Sister companies may be a “single employer” under Title VII

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

Businesses that have a common owner naturally bear some similarities

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

Claims for unpaid wages and overtime pay lawfully waived by union in settlement not signed by employees and not approved by court

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

When employees file a grievance under their collective bargaining agreement regarding a complaint of not being paid overtime, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the union negotiates a settlement of those claims with the employer, and the complaining employees cash their respective settlement checks, they are bound by the settlement and may not pursue an FLSA lawsuit to recover additional amounts

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