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 529

New Michigan right to work lawsuit filed after MEA threatens to send teacher to collections for failing to pay dues

  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 10 2014

Last October we reported that the Mackinac Center had filed unfair labor practice charges with the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC

DECEs are instructional support staff

  • Miller Thomson LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • March 30 2012

In a February 2012 decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), the OLRB determined that Designated Early Childhood Educators (DECE) working for the District School Board of Niagara (School Board) were part of a pre-existing Canadian Union of Public Employees’ (CUPE) bargaining unit covering instructional support staff

U.S. Supreme Court grants petition for certiorari in Quon v. Arch Wireless case involving employee communications claim under Stored Communications Act

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the employer in a case involving the privacy of employee communications under the Stored Communications Act provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Ownership of IP UWA v Gray

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • Australia
  • -
  • September 8 2009

Universitiesand companies dealing with universities in the commercialisation of intellectual propertywill need to review how universities have the rights to intellectual property developed by academics

Dress codes and hairstyles could your policy be discriminatory?

  • Kingsley Napley
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 21 2011

In a well publicised decision relevant to all employers with dress codes, the High Court has ruled in the case of SG v St Gregory’s Catholic Science College, that a blanket, unwavering, policy of not allowing a “cornrows” hairstyle on male pupils, with no exceptions, could be considered indirect race discrimination, which could be justified if the ban were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, but was not on the facts of the case

Supreme Court to examine First Amendment retaliation claim

  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 22 2014

Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a First Amendment retaliation claim brought by a public employee against his former employer

False Claims Act qui tam defense: employment releases not presumptively void for public policy under the False Claims Act

  • Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 30 2010

For False Claims Act actions, the Fourth Circuit has followed the Ninth Circuit and adopted a public policy balancing test to hold that employment releases are not presumptively void for public policy, when challenged to bar declined qui tam suits by relators who executed employment releases with employers

Wisconsin’s controversial public union law upheld as constitutional

  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 5 2013

A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld Wisconsin's widely-discussed 2011 law that limits the collective bargaining rights of

Facebook posts permit school district to remove teacher from tenured position.

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 19 2013

A New Jersey appellate panel has upheld the decision to fire a tenured first-grade teacher because of critical postings she made toward her students

Overtime lawsuit for use of PDA's hi-lights potential liability for off-duty electronic communications

  • Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 1 2010

A recent lawsuit filed by a group of Chicago Police Sergeants hi-lights the potential for overtime liability that may arise when an employer requires or permits its non-exempt employees to receive and respond to work-related electronic communications outside normal work hours