Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has a statutory obligation to conciliate in good faith with employers prior to initiating litigation. This is a well-known obligation, but it is not always carried out in a manner that is fair to employers. In recent years, employers have become increasingly frustrated with the EEOC's approach to conciliation, particularly where it seems that the EEOC is more concerned with pursuing litigation than with attempting to eliminate alleged discriminatory practices voluntarily through conciliation.
The use of mandatory arbitration provisions in employment contracts has grown in recent years as employers seek to avoid what is perceived as 'time-consuming' and 'costly' litigation in state or federal courts. Of course, whether or not arbitration actually saves time or money is an issue open for debate. One only has to receive the pre-hearing invoice from three panelists at $500 per hour to question the latter benefit.
Features
Part One of this article described the background, key provisions and legal challenges to the 'No-Match' regulations. The conclusion herein offers strategies for employers.
Most standard employment agreements and personnel policies include provisions that condition the receipt of certain benefits or trigger certain disciplinary actions on the basis of 'good cause' or 'cause.' Many employers believe that since they make the first call as to whether cause exists, that is the final call. However, as demonstrated by the jury verdict in a recent Maryland trial, it is the jury, not the employer, that gets to make the final call as to whether cause exists.
Features
Who's doing what; who's going where.
Features
Part One of this article began a discussion of the dramatic increase in cases alleging caregiver discrimination. Part Two herein discusses the most recent cases and guidelines involving this area of the law, and how employers can best protect themselves, given the explosion of family responsibility discrimination (FRD) cases and the open issues that could further impact the number of FRD filings.
On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Gattuso v. Harte-Hanke Shoppers, Inc., S139555, confirming an employer's ability to satisfy its obligation under Labor Code ' 2802 to reimburse employees for all their business expenses with additional income. This article provides an analysis of the ruling.
Features
In the wake of a failed attempt to negotiate legislation for comprehensive U.S. immigration reform with Congress, the Bush Administration recently announced a series of 'regulatory' reforms to tighten immigration enforcement. Perhaps the most significant and controversial of those reforms is the Department of Homeland Security's new regulation addressing 'no-match' letters. Although the new regulation has been temporarily enjoined pending a hearing in federal court, employers should begin considering how they will comply with it if an injunction is not granted.
Features
Part One of this article discussed releases and covenants not to sue, the issues raised by the OWBPA (Older Workers Benefits Protection Act) and EEOC Regulations, and <i>Thomforde v. International Business Machines</i>, 406 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2005). The conclusion herein discusses the <i>Syverson</i> case and considerations for employers in preparing releases. <i>Syverson v. International Business Machines</i>, 461 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006).