The Eleventh Circuit recently addressed a novel issue: What should courts do when faced with an employment contract containing provisions that run
In Bodine v. Cook's Pest Control Inc., No. 15-13233, 2016 WL 4056031 (11th Cir. July 29, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit held that a forced-arbitration
The Illinois Department of Human Services runs two programs that provide in-home care to Illinois residents.
Many employers are familiar with the traditional scenario in which an investigation is initiated.
The Supreme Court has strengthened case law on non-compete clauses by ruling, on 30 March 2011, that prejudice is caused to an employee if an employment contract provides for a non-compete obligation that is unenforceable due to the absence of financial compensation.
It is hard to imagine a more difficult set of circumstances for a local authority than those explored in last month's Court of Appeal ruling.
Last week's Court of Appeal judgment finds that the then Education Secretary Ed Balls acted unlawfully in removing Sharon Shoesmith from her post as Director of Children's Services, and that Haringey Council also acted unlawfully when it went on to terminate her underlying contract of employment without notice.
As the volume of employment claims increases, so too do the inevitable delays in resolving those claims
In Decision 24361, which was issued on December 1 2010, the Labour Section of the Supreme Court stated that an employer may dismiss an employee for poor performance even if the employee in question has not committed a gross violation of his or her duty of diligence.
In Pezza v. Investors Capital Corp., a Massachusetts federal district court held recently that Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) whistleblower protections to bar enforcement of pre-dispute arbitration agreements in whistleblower challenges, applies retroactively.