In helping employers on wage and hour issues, I’m struck sometimes by the occasional failure to maintain proper records on their employees.
In a recent case the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that a facebook posting about a co-worker’s Mexican heritage was prohibited workplace harassment under the Human Rights Code (the “Code”).
@LRToday Morning Round-Up: Cargo Contracts, Senate’s “Nuclear Option,” Smithsonian Workers On Strike
MEBA and AMO Butt Heads over Cargo Contract: Dan Prochilo of Law360 ($$) writes that the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (MEBA) has sued the American Maritime Officers (AMO) in Federal court, alleging that AMO unlawfully convinced a cargo company to blow up its agreement with MEBA.
The Supreme Court of the United States continued its hot streak in the arbitration and class action waiver arena with two recent decisions. These decisions are important for employers because they may offer employers a way control expenses related to dispute resolution with employees.
During the course of non-compete litigation, a party may seek to obtain the employment files of the adverse party.
The FLSA’s “outside sales” exemption from minimum wage and overtime is among the more straightforward exemptions, in that it contains only two requirements: that the employee be “customarily and regularly” away from the employer’s place of business; and that the employee primarily be engaged in making sales.
Where a person seeks compensation for injury resulting from wrongful conduct, there must be a demonstrated connection between the wrong alleged and the injury — i.e., causation.
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in United States v. Windsor. The Court ruled that a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional.
Recently, the Hospitality & Service Trades Union, Local 261 (HSTU) commenced an application at the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have Service Star Building Cleaning Inc. declared a successor employer under Section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.
A central issue in all trade secret litigation is the adequacy of a plaintiff’s pre-discovery disclosure of the alleged trade secrets required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. Section 2019.210 provides that a plaintiff suing for misappropriation of trade secrets must identify the alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” before commencing discovery.