Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Employers now must balance the duty to maintain a safe workplace with employees' right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, their rights under state constitutions, and laws allowing guns at work ' which is a new and growing trend in employment legislation.
What is work? When does the workday begin and end? These seemingly easy questions are not so easy anymore. Here's why.
In <i>Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court</i>, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal substantively altered the wage and hour landscape through its conclusion that California meal and rest period regulations only impose a passive obligation on employers to make breaks available.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
On Oct. 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Public Law 111-84 ("NDAA for 2010"). Primarily a defense appropriations law, the NDAA contains several amendments to the family military-leave provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Although no specific effective date is noted in the amendments, it appears these amendments went into effect upon President Obama's signature and are the most recent in a series of changes to the FMLA.
Features
The first part of this article addressed issues surrounding the effect of the Internet on hiring and firing in the 21st Century. The conclusion herein discusses the laws that impact social networking in the workplace, and provides guidance on developing a social networking and blogging policy.
When asked to provide a reference for a former employee, employers may feel that they are trapped in a no-win situation. They understand that prospective employers are trying to shield themselves from negligent hiring claims by engaging in the "due diligence" of checking with former employers. However, providing details about a less-than-stellar former employee's shortcomings is rarely the best course of action.
Features
In <i>Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC</i>, 128 the Supreme Court held that, where an employer adopts a pension plan that includes age as a factor, and the employer then treats employees differently based on pension status, an employer will only be liable for disparate treatment under the ADEA if the plaintiff can adduce sufficient evidence to show that the differential treatment was actually motivated by age and not pension status.
