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

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

Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not save employee from dismissal for positive drug test result

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

Colorado employers are anxiously awaiting an appellate court decision on whether properly registered medical marijuana users in the state may have a public policy wrongful discharge cause of action if they are discharged for a positive cannabis test result under their employers' drug and alcohol abuse programs

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

Jury waiver signed by employee under threat of loss of employment was not coerced

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

Many employers, for various legal reasons, ask their existing workers to sign assorted documents as a condition of their continued employment

Employee who “moons” supervisors forfeits severance benefits; written warning issued to employee doesn’t preclude discharge for same offense

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

Even though it often doesn't seem that way, the law sometimes follows common sense

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’s practice of requiring medical reasons for absence in doctor’s statements violates ADA

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

An employee (we'll call her Ms. Jones) who missed three days of work presents to you the following doctor's note: "Ms. Jones off work three days, will return next Monday."

Colorado Supreme Court ruling resuscitates non-compete-type agreements with current employees

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

Colorado employers that wish to implement non-competition, non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements with their incumbent employees have, until recently, faced an obstacle in the form of a 2009 Court of Appeals' decision stating that an at-will worker's continuation of employment was not sufficient consideration for such an agreement