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 17,790

Physician fist fight HCQIA suspension etiquette

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 2 2008

A physician whose competency was questioned by a colleague decided that confronting the physician colleague, demanding that the colleague stop questioning his experience, training, and competency, and threatening to sue him while blocking the doorway to prevent the colleague from leaving was the preferred approach to quality assurance

U.S. Supreme Court faces variety of employment issues

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court begins its 2008-09 term with several cases related to labor and employment, raising issues that include the protection afforded employees who participate in sexual harassment investigations, management’s right to require union employees to arbitrate discrimination claims rather than raise them in court, and whether employers calculating pension benefits must credit employees for the time they missed work for pregnancy leaves taken before pregnancy discrimination was outlawed

Employer must pay all costs of testing under bloodborne pathogens standard, including travel costs and non-work time spent

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2008

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that OSHA Compliance Directives under the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (BPS) require employers to compensate employees for all expenses, including travel expenses and non-work time spent getting tested for bloodborne pathogens to which they might have been exposed on the job

“On call waiting time” not compensable under FLSA or NJWHL

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2008

The New Jersey District Court recently adopted the Third Circuit’s analysis under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to decide a wage claim under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL

“Honest suspicion” that employee is abusing intermittent leave is grounds for termination

  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 18 2008

Controlling the use of intermittent leave is one of the more perplexing aspects of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for employers

Traps for the unwary: reference provisions in settlement agreements

  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 18 2008

Lance Manion, in-house attorney, was early to the office as usual

Employee not entitled to recap taxes withheld while misclassified as independent contractor

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2008

Plaintiff, a Regional Marketing Director, signed an “Independent Contractor Agreement” and for the first three years of her engagement she was classified as such

Improper use of company’s e-mail disqualified employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits

  • Ogletree Deakins
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 1 2008

Plaintiff here was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits due to “misconduct connected with the work” after he was terminated for violating the company’s computer usage policy, specifically forwarding distasteful e-mail messages to his wife and others

California Supreme Court clarifies scope of state prohibition on non-competition restrictions

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 2 2008

Many states recognize and enforce non-competition agreements and allow such restraints on the practice of a trade or business provided they are "reasonable."

Federal court rejects sex discrimination claim based on working mother stereotypes

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 15 2008

A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine reaffirms that federal law does not prohibit discrimination against employees based on family status and rejects an employee’s attempts to prove sex discrimination based only on the prevalence of certain stereotypes in the modern American workplace