A couple of readers of our blog post yesterday relating to employer dress and grooming policies helpfully added a couple of points about an employer’s legitimate health and safety concerns, which we publish below.
For some time, people who have neglected their pets have been subject to animal cruelty violations.
We’ve written throughout the year about new employment laws that take effect in California in 2015. But as the year winds down, here’s a handy list of the most significant ones (with links to our earlier entries).
As we bear down on the first date of compliance with the ACA, much has been written about the benefit of shifting coverage to a self-funded plan because self-funded plans are not subject to many of the requirements of the ACA.
We have just heard about an apparent controversy at Starbucks over a new corporate dress policy — apparently the policy limits an employee’s right to wear certain types of jewelry, clothing and shoes.
College support is back in the news as a young woman resident in New Jersey has sued her parents to contribute to her undergraduate education at Philadelphia’s Temple University. The case brings us to revisit the question of how college agreements need to be molded to meet with the new realities of post secondary education.
Have you heard about what the latest technology has to offer in the form of a collar for dogs and cats that monitors certain parameters of health?
Whew. Let’s just take a moment for that to sink in. As we reported on Monday, $185 Million in punitive damages were awarded Monday against AutoZone. This was after the jury awarded $872,000 in compensatory damages on Friday.
OK, so we engaged in a little Page 6 headline hyperbole – the Nuns were not literally “tossed out” of the court, but just had their discrimination claims dismissed. But the case is important, and we wanted to catch your eye.