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

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

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

Fragrance-free workplace policy & work at home may have been reasonable accommodations for employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to “Japanese Cherry Blossom”

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

A federal court in Ohio recently ruled that an employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to perfumes and scented products could pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against her employer for not reasonably accommodating her disability, despite the many (albeit delayed) accommodations offered by her employer

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

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

Lawfully fired employee may claim “chilled” exercise of FMLA rights despite receiving leave

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

Employers have the duty not to "interfere with" the exercise of any right under the Family and Medical Leave Act

“Reverse discrimination” may be found when white supervisor was fired for violating “zero tolerance” policy, but black employees who violated policy were not

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 1 2011

Although "reverse discrimination" claims are not often asserted, and when asserted, are seldom successful, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that such a claim might be viable, when a white supervisor was fired for sending a "Top Ten Reasons Why There are No Black NASCAR Drivers" joke e-mail to others, but two black employees who forwarded a "How to Dance Like a White Guy" video to others were not dismissed

Stress over business-related flying is not “disability”

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 4 2011

Although the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments broadened the coverage of the ADA by expanding the definition of "disability, some ADA plaintiffs' efforts to test the limits of the definition have been unsuccessful

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