In two unrelated cases decided earlier this month, employers failed in their attempts to enjoin former employees from competing.
As I have previously warned in prior blog posts here and here, the Massachusetts Wage Act exposes a company and individuals having management responsibility for the company to mandatory treble damages and attorneys’ fees for failing to pay wages.
It is not very often a U.S. Supreme Court Justice begins the Court’s opinion with “The question before us is the meaning of the phrase ‘changing clothes’…,” but that is exactly what happened last month when the United States Supreme Court ruled on an important donning and doffing case initiated by U.S. Steel workers. The whole case revolved around the definition of “changing clothes.”
I have been following the series of lawsuits filed by attorneys who claim they were not performing “attorney” work and are therefore entitled to overtime in collective and class actions filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I was interviewed for a news story that aired on KTLA here in Los Angeles about employer’s use of social media in evaluating applicants and employees.
Workers at the Volkswagen AG plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee voted against union representation by the United Auto Workers. The highly anticipated 3-day secret-ballot election, supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, resulted in a 712 to 626 loss for the UAW.
The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to subject an employee to detriment because they have raised (or are threatening to raise) a complaint about discrimination – so-called “victimisation.”
According to a recent Washington Post news report, KBR and Halliburton required its contract employees in Iraq and Afghanistan to not report fraud or waste.