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

Washington employer must reinstate employee after FMLA leave despite having doubts about employee's ability to perform job

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

In Chaney v. Providence Health Care, Robert Chaney worked as a hospital radiologic technician in the State of Washington. Chaney was instructed to

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

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

Rite Aid to pay almost $21 million to settle class action suits for unpaid overtime by assistant store managers

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

A federal district court in Pennsylvania gave preliminary approval in Craig v. Rite Aid Corporation to a settlement of fifteen wage and hour class action lawsuits brought by assistant store managers and co-managers against Rite Aid in 30 states and the District of Columbia

Retaliation against employee for filing worker’s compensation claim does not support california wrongful termination claim

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

In Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, the employee sued alleging, among other claims, that the hospital wrongfully terminated her in violation of public policy in retaliation for having filed a workers' compensation claim

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

Company allowed to pursue suit against former employee for unfair competition despite absence of trade-secret violation

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

In Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Park, a California court of appeal considered the issue whether Angelica's common-law claims for breach of

Illinois Supreme Court holds employer liable for invasion of employee’s privacy by outside investigator

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

In Lawlor v. North American Corporation (lower court opinion reported at FEB hyperlink), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the employer was liable for the actions of its outside investigator who engaged in "pretexting" to obtain a former employee's personal cell phone records

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