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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 99

Employee not eligible for FMLA leave still protected by non-discrimination provisions
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

Many employers offer leave of absence benefits to employees that supplement leaves of absence provided by the Family and Medical Leave Act


Is it worthwhile to fight unemployment benefits claims? Another reason to just say no
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 5 2012

Understandably, employers are upset when ex-employees fired for good cause - especially acts of misconduct - file unemployment compensation claims


The declining value of non-disparagement provisions in separation agreements
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 3 2010

When entering into settlements or release agreements with departing employees, some employers want to bargain "hard" for non-disparagement provisions


Timing of employee discharge supports FMLA retaliation and interference claims
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 2 2011

Most employers believe that an employee who is laid off for business reasons has no basis for a lawsuit


Property owners have no indemnification or other liability-shifting rights against consultants whose advice results in ADA Title III violations
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 5 2012

Owners of "public accommodations" covered by Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as public entities with facilities governed by Title II of the ADA, often rely on the advice of consultants for compliance with the ADA's accessibility requirements


How not to make a layoff decision look discriminatory
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • March 3 2011

When employers are held liable for discrimination in a reduction in force, the liability is all too often the result of, not illegal bias, but rather, poor decision-making procedures, sloppy documentation and inattention to detail


Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not save employee from dismissal for positive drug test result
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • March 3 2011

Colorado employers are anxiously awaiting an appellate court decision on whether properly registered medical marijuana users in the state may have a public policy wrongful discharge cause of action if they are discharged for a positive cannabis test result under their employers' drug and alcohol abuse programs


Colorado Supreme Court ruling resuscitates non-compete-type agreements with current employees
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • July 11 2011

Colorado employers that wish to implement non-competition, non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreements with their incumbent employees have, until recently, faced an obstacle in the form of a 2009 Court of Appeals' decision stating that an at-will worker's continuation of employment was not sufficient consideration for such an agreement


Employer’s intrusion into employee’s Facebook page may be invasion of privacy
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • July 9 2012

A federal district court in New Jersey recently addressed a question about which employers have long speculated, but had no answer, whether an employee can successfully assert an invasion of privacy tort claim against an employer that makes unauthorized access to the individual's Facebook account


The new NLRB begins change of law on remedies
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 3 2010

We have been warning clients that the new National Labor Relations Board is expected to issue decisions and rules changing traditional federal labor law