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 16,246

Non-competition v. unfair competition in California

  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 29 2011

We all know that California does not permit enforcement of non-compete agreements

Another New York Federal Court narrowly construes the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

  • Jackson Lewis PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 27 2013

When an executive search firm bought the goodwill and other assets of a similar firm and learned that the individual sellers took client lists and

Religious discrimination based on Abercrombie "look policy"

  • Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2011

A federal court in Oklahoma recently found an Abercrombie Kids store (a brand of Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.) liable for religious discrimination because the store did not hire a Muslim applicant who wore a headscarf during a job interview

Release of claims unenforceable as against USERRA claims

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 21 2007

The California Court of Appeal recently struck a release that purported to waive any causes of action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights of 1994 (“USERRA”

Labor Department temporarily suspends prevailing wage processing in PERM and H-1 B cases

  • Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 10 2011

The United States Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, recently announced that it has temporarily suspended processing of Prevailing Wage requests for most case types, including PERM Labor Certifications

Eighth Circuit provides guidance concerning successor in interest test under USERRA

  • Dechert LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2010

In Reynolds v. RehabCare Group East, Inc., 591 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer in a case in which the plaintiff alleged the company had failed to reinstate her from military leave in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA”), 38 U.S.C., 4301 et seq

New York Court of Appeals clarifies tip-sharing rules in Starbucks case

  • Duane Morris LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 2 2013

On June 26, 2013, the New York Court of Appeals issued an Advisory Opinion clarifying which employees may share in tip pools under New York Labor

Wage and hour quarterly newsletter

  • Baker & McKenzie
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 19 2010

This issue identifies how wage and hour developments in the first quarter of 2010 may impact employers and offers practical guidance to help companies proactively manage government agency investigations and avoid class action litigation pitfalls. The newsletter discusses recent enforcement initiatives at the U.S. Department of Labor, new interpretations of federal wage and hour laws and regulations by the Wage and Hour Division, recent case law developments and pending federal and state legislation

Want to recover your fees for meritless civil rights litigation? The Supreme Court explains how

  • Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 9 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that in civil rights cases where the plaintiff brings both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims, the defendant can recover those attorneys' fees it would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown: California Court of Appeal opens door for new chemicals to be listed under Proposition 65 without scientific or public review

  • Latham & Watkins LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2011

In a significant defeat for the business community, the California Court of Appeal for the First District has issued a decision that allows the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add many new chemicals to the Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants without first providing an opportunity for meaningful scientific or public review