President Ronald Reagan famously noted that the “most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
Well, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced on 1/20/2015 that they were here to help clarify when a joint employment relationship exist under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
The Wall Street Journal recently ran an editorial titled, “Why the Trial Bar and Its Friends Detest Arbitration” by James R. Copland. Mr. Copland’s editorial highlighted some high-profile lawsuits to conclude that the court system often fails companies. Business owners frequently share the same belief and assume their businesses will fare better in
Texting as a reckless activity is well-documented when it comes to driving. It is also noted as an increasing health hazard for “petextrians” (pedestrians who are texting, clever huh?) according to Ben Zimmer of the Wall Street Journal in his article “What Do You Call a Reckless Texter?”
But can it be “reckless”
In noncompete lawsuits, whether a preliminary injunction should be issued is a critical battle that in large part determines the direction of the lawsuit. For this reason, a recent decision denying a former employer’s motion for injunctive relief in a non-compete enforcement action provides critical insight for companies and individuals.
An area under the Americans with Disabilities Act that can be problematic for employers and employees alike concerns conducting the individualized inquiry that is required to determine if an employee’s disability or another condition disqualifies the employee from a particular position. This issue recently played out in a federal district court case of (Siewertsen
A long-running sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) came to an end on November 25, 2015, when a Michigan federal district court approved a consent decree. Under that decree, Cintas Corporation agreed to pay $1.5 million in addition to a numerous other requirements for years to come. A copy of
An employer’s defense to a lawsuit brought under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) was derailed after a judge agreed there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the employer investigated an employee’s work performance to find a “legitimate” reason to fire him after that employee requested leave.
The case, Lankford v.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled for a Saginaw nurse who filed a wrongful discharge claim alleging he was fired in violation of public policy. As we previously noted, this case raised a question of whether Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act was the former employee’s exclusive remedy.
In sum, Mr. Landin was terminated from his job
On November 4, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument in a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim under Michigan law. The central issue to be decided is whether that claim could be asserted or – as the employer contends – was the discharged employee limited exclusively to bringing a claim under
Earlier this year we wrote about the EEOC’s decision that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, which is made unlawful under Title VII. See Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Unlawful under Federal Law … For Now?
On 10/29/2015, this issue was before a district court judge who agreed with the agency’s opinion, but