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 101

Employer not required to conduct background check, and not liable to customer who was pistol-whipped by employee

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 11 2012

In Harris v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled that the operator of a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in Philadelphia was not liable to a customer who was pistol-whipped by a store clerk

Company not required to reinstate temporary employee after FMLA leave of absence where temp agency did not request that employee be reinstated

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 15 2013

In Cuellar v. Keppel Amfels LLC, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the relatively novel issue of whether a company has an obligation to

New York employer's flex-time policy precluded holding employee accountable for tardiness

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2013

Flex-time policies are fairly common among U.S. employers, and allow employees to arrive and leave work within a defined time range, instead of

Court refuses to enforce invention assignment agreement as unlawful noncompete

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 10 2009

In Applied Materials v. Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment Company, the federal district court for the Northern District of California refused to enforce an invention assignment clause that required former employees to assign inventions disclosed within one year of termination of employment if the invention related to work performed by the employee for the employer

Polo Ralph Lauren settles off-the-clock wage claim for $4 million

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 9 2010

In Otsuka v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., a federal district court in Northern California approved a $4 million class action settlement for unpaid wages

Federal prohibition on bankruptcy discrimination does not cover hiring

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 14 2011

In Myers v. Toojay's Mgmt. Corp., the Eleventh Circuit held that a federal Bankruptcy Code provision prohibiting termination of and discrimination against employees for filing bankruptcy does not cover hiring decisions

Employee fails to establish sexual harassment based on isolated events

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 10 2011

In Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises, Inc., a California court of appeal affirmed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the employer that overturned a $250,000 jury verdict in employee's favor for sexual harassment

Inability to work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week not ADA disability

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 13 2012

In Boitnott v. Corning Inc., the federal Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal (covering Virginia) held that a worker able to work eight hours in a day and 40 hours a week was not disabled under the ADA

California employers allowed to round employee time to nearest one-tenth of an hour for calculating overtime

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 13 2012

In a case of first impression, a California court of appeal ruled that employers may round nonexempt employee time to the nearest one-tenth of an hour for purposes of calculating overtime pay

Settlement approved of class action over requirement that Footlocker employees wear athletic shoes purchased at employee expense

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 13 2012

In Kullar v. Footlocker, a California court of appeal approved a settlement of a class action lawsuit for almost $1.3 million covering about 18,000 employees arising out of, among other claims, an employer requirement that the employees wear athletic shoes to work that had to be purchased at the employee's expense