Here is something you don’t see happen everyday – an instance of “butt dialing” becoming a federal case.
Specifically, an inadvertently dialed cell phone call purportedly involving discussions about unlawful employment discrimination resulted in a federal lawsuit for intentionally intercepting private conversations in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street
When it comes to post employment restrictions, non-compete agreements often get all the attention. In fact, such restrictions are a frequent subject of discussion on our law firm’s blog (Noncompete Restrictions: The First Line of Defense for Protecting the Company from Unfair Competition).
However, as explained below, a carefully drafted non-solicitation provision should
A recent religious discrimination claim dismissed in favor of an employer offers a number important take-aways for both employers and employees. Specifically, on 7/16/2015 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a religious discrimination claim brought by a Jewish nurse who had worked for a Missouri medical center. See Shirrell v. St.
On June 26, 
2015, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that same-sex couples nationwide have a constitutional right to marry.
The full case opinion (Obergefell v. Hodges) is available here, however, the majority opinion was best summed up by Justice Kennedy as follows:
The right to marry is a fundamental right
Michigan employers dodged a bullet (sort of) on when it comes to whether telecommuting must be considered as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Specifically, in a “judicial do-over,” the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in EEOC v. Ford revisited a prior decision (previously discussed here) that had concluded
We previously discussed the Department of Labor’s final rule that extended Family and Medical Leave Act protections to same-sex married couples. That rule was to apply regardless of the couple’s state of residence. But same-sex couples in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska will have to wait to enjoy the same benefits provided to heterosexual
Two annoyances in life often involve cliches and living out a cliche. This is especially true when the cliche is “shooting yourself in the foot.” But T-Mobile got to experience both last week when the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that it engaged in unfair labor policies.
The ruling arose out of T-Mobile’s employee
At a time when companies are increasingly using “independent contractors” rather than W-2 employees, the risks and liabilities for misclassification have never been higher. And it just got harder for Michigan and other Midwest employers who are accused of improperly classifying their workforce after a 3/26/2015 ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Specifically,
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued the much anticipated opinion in a pregnancy discrimination claim, Young v . United Parcel Service.
For context, the claim in Young v UPS arose under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA was added to Title VII (the gold-standard in terms of civil rights law prohibiting workplace discrimination)
Thanks to the National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB), companies need to add employee manuals to the list of things that need spring cleaning. Specifically, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel issued a 3/18/2015 report full of examples of how your company’s employee manual likely violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
For background,