The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that state voters may choose to prohibit the consideration of race in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to public school admissions.
Claims in Pennsylvania Lawsuit Alleging En Masse Defection of Employees As “Sabotage” Survive Dismissal
A U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has allowed several claims to proceed to trial following a motion for summary judgment by defendants in Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. 721 Logistics, LLC, et al, No. 12-0864 (April 4, 2014).
Although unlikely to be passed in its current form, President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget request to Congress allocates an additional $2 million of the Department of Labor’s requested $1.8 billion budget so that the Department’s Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) can hire additional personnel primarily to deal with a massive backlog of cases.
New DOL FMLA Branch Chief: Expect Even More On-Site FMLA Investigations and Focus On Systemic FMLA Compliance Issues
This past December, the Department of Labor quietly turned its FMLA enforcement over to a new leader.
On April 16, 2014, the Alberta government introduced Bill 10, Employment Pension (Private Sector) Plans Amendment Act, 2014. Bill 10, if passed, will further amend the new Employment Pension Plans Act (“EPPA”).
Recently we talked about coded language meant to disguise discriminatory intent - “language workaround,” as one reader called it.
What’s missing from the rash of news reports and blog posts about the NLRB’s ruling allowing scholarship football players at Northwestern to vote on whether to join a union is an explanation of why the athletes want a union.
This blog refers to Bettina Goletz’s blog on “Limits on non-compete and non-solicitation clauses under German law”.
Over the last few weeks, I’ve been seeing more tweets from human resources types and mainstream reporters using the phrase “wage theft”. Two recent examples?
On April 18, 2014 a federal court jury in Jackson rendered a plaintiffs’ verdict in the total amount of $271,200 in Smith v. Tower Automotive Operations USA.