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

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."

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

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

No invasion of privacy when employer fires EMT for posting derogatory comments about patient on a fellow employee’s Facebook page

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

When an employee posts derogatory comments about her employer or its patients on a fellow worker's Facebook page, the employee has no reasonable expectation of privacy and cannot complain of an invasion of privacy when she is fired because of the post and her defiant response to counseling about the post

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

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

How not to make a layoff decision look discriminatory

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

When employers are held liable for discrimination in a reduction in force, the liability is all too often the result of, not illegal bias, but rather, poor decision-making procedures, sloppy documentation and inattention to detail