Search for: "Federal Employment Law Insider"
Results 201 - 220
of 2,233
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2023, 11:02 am
The post Five Common Exempt Classifications Under California Law appeared first on California Employment Law Report. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 6:28 pm
Eight Years Later: Three Big Changes in Employment Law – Hartford attorney Daniel Schwartz of Shipman & Goodwin in his Connecticut Employment Law Blog Doing the “Two Step”: Court Grants Stage One Conditional Certification Of EPA Collective Action – Gerald L. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 9:19 am
Keep up with the latest legal changes in employer benefits with the Benefits and Compensation Law Alert and with changes in federal employment laws in the Federal Employment Law Insider. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 3:53 am
A recent ruling by a federal district judge in Roanoke is a big WIN for the employee in a case with non-compete issues. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 3:29 pm
He comments that employers must carefully consider whether to require the disclosure of passwords even in unregulated states, as they may face a privacy lawsuit; the employer must also consider the risk of obtaining knowledge of a protected characteristic or medical condition that could lead to allegations of discrimination under federal, state or local laws. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 2:00 am
Sara Nasseri is an associate with Fortney & Scott, LLC in Washington, D.C. and contributor to Federal Employment Law Insider. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 2:00 am
Sara Nasseri is an associate with Fortney & Scott, LLC in Washington, D.C. and contributor to Federal Employment Law Insider. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 2:00 am
Sara Nasseri is an associate with Fortney & Scott, LLC in Washington, D.C. and contributor to Federal Employment Law Insider. [read post]
17 May 2019, 3:39 pm
The post Five lessons for California employers from $6 million verdict against Walmart appeared first on California Employment Law Report. [read post]
2 Sep 2022, 6:26 am
However, employers are still free to implement policies that: Prohibit all firearms and other weapons inside their buildings and vehicles. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 2:04 pm
Whether it "should" or not, its federal counterpart recently engaged in a similar program -- albeit with employment law practitioners. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 6:19 pm
It includes cases involving breach of contract, employment discrimination, and other civil disputes. [read post]
7 May 2015, 5:13 am
[Image courtesy of Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider] Related StoriesSex stereotyping as transgender discriminationLGBT rules for federal contractors now in effectOSHA and pro sports—are concussions the NFL’s black lung? [read post]
15 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
This case serves as a reminder for employers that even though an employee's religious beliefs may seem strange, as long as those beliefs are sincerely held, the law requires that employers accommodate them absent undue hardship. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 7:00 am
They claim that federal law entitled them to a minimum of 60 days' notice. [read post]
23 Mar 2016, 10:20 am
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) prohibits harassment and discrimination in the workplace that is based on one or more of the categories commonly protected by local, state and federal discrimination laws. [read post]
8 May 2017, 5:45 am
The measures in H.R. 1628 that affect employers are relatively uncontroversial, according to Eric Schillinger, a contributor to Federal Employment Law Insider and an attorney at Trucker Huss. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 5:28 pm
Thus, even if the court found that employer had “good cause” to discharge the employee, thereby eliminating potential exposure under the WDEA, an employer still could face potential litigation and/or exposure for violation of federal or state anti-discrimination statutes. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 4:36 am
On the other hand, the federal labor law posters minimize the rights of the people who are not under the federal government. [read post]
9 May 2013, 11:43 am
” Where federal law grants an actor a choice and the state law would restrict that choice, the state law is preempted if preserving that choice is a significant regulatory objective. [read post]
