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


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


Employer directive that employee get unspecified “counseling” treated as unlawful “medical examination”
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

Heaven help the misguided employer who instructs an employee to go for unspecified "counseling."


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


Employer’s mention of employee’s pregnancy complications in termination-related papers does not prove pregnancy bias
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • November 2 2011

When employers make gratuitous comments or references about an employee's (or an applicant's) age, gender, national origin, or race, for example -- in a performance evaluation, discharge papers, or the like -- the remarks often evidence a discriminatory bias


Is the scope of protected “opposition” shrinking?
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • May 1 2012

Section 704 of Title VII protects an employee from retaliation for "opposing" the employer's illegal discrimination or for "participating" in a proceeding raising a claim of discrimination banned by Title VII


Inaccurate information given in post-offer, pre-hire exam may not be basis for employee’s later discharge
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • September 1 2011

The Americans with Disabilities Act permits an employer to require an applicant to pass an employment entrance examination, if the applicant has received a conditional job offer, if the examination inquires into the ability of the applicant to perform job-related functions, if all such entering employees are required to undergo an examination, and if the information obtained is retained separate from other records and is treated as a confidential medical record


Employer may have duty to accommodate a disabled employee in her commute
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • September 1 2011

In a case that could make landmark law, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer may, depending on the circumstances, be obligated to make reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee's commute to and from work


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


Fragrance-free workplace policy & work at home may have been reasonable accommodations for employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to “Japanese Cherry Blossom”
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • September 6 2012

A federal court in Ohio recently ruled that an employee with asthma and chemical sensitivity to perfumes and scented products could pursue an Americans with Disabilities Act claim against her employer for not reasonably accommodating her disability, despite the many (albeit delayed) accommodations offered by her employer