In recent years, there has been a continuing emphasis by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on investigations of corporate wrongdoing, including an increase in the investigation and finding of individual liability for that wrongdoing. This emphasis recently was documented in something now being referred to as the “Yates Memorandum.”
Un-Safe Harbor Ahead: the Electronic Transfer of Personal Data has Hit Stormy Weather.
More than two years after the Edward Snowden leaks, the effects still linger. Most recently, those effects were felt on October 6, 2015, in a decision issued by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which invalidated the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework (“Safe Harbor”) – a decision which has companies that regularly transfer personal data from
8th Circuit denies enforcement of NLRB decision regarding throat-slitting gesture.
Over the past year, employers have bemoaned the fact that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has decided: that two nursing home employees should be reinstated despite performance deficiencies that included patient safety issues; that an employee’s online and obscenity-laced rant was “protected activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA); and that an employee’s
Non-disabled individual may bring claim of retaliation under the ADA.
Does an individual have to be disabled in order to bring a lawsuit under the retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says No.
In a recent unpublished opinion, that court reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an ADA retaliation claim, pointing out that an
Attempted self-help via internet leads to employer liability under the FLSA.
Ongoing activity by the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding overtime regulations, coupled with recent federal court decisions regarding compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), have raised the level of attention to wage payment issues — and have increased the risk of employer liability — to new heights. A recent decision by the
New Federal Minimum Wage and Overtime Requirements for Home Health Care Workers Reinstated by Appellate Court
This article was written by Carolyn E. Sieve (Of Counsel in the Orange County office of Ogletree Deakins) and Robert R. Roginson (Shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins).
On August 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association of America v. Weil reinstated the
Do multiple death threats from a depressed employee make him ineligible for protection under disability laws? The Ninth Circuit says Yes.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that an employee’s reaction to stress that included threats to kill co-workers – made in “chilling detail and on multiple occasions” – meant that the individual could not perform an essential function of his job and, therefore, was not a “qualified individual” for protection under
Performance Reviews: Constructive Criticism . . . or Total Destruction?
By Maria Greco Danaher (Shareholder, Ogletree Deakins) and Christopher M. Danaher (Director, Client Partnership & Growth for Bellefield Systems)
Is the annual performance review a value-added event for employees . . . or is it an anxiety-generating mechanism that could be eliminated without the loss of any forward momentum to a company?
Here are a
DOL guidance on independent contractor classification provides another arrow in the Department’s enforcement quiver.
The Administrator of the US Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage & Hour Division, David Weil, has issued a formal Interpretation on the subject of “The Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s ‘Suffer or Permit’ Standard in the Identification of Employees Who Are Misclassified as Independent Contractors,” the DOL’s first on the issue
Requesting FMLA leave does not give an employee greater protection against firing for reasons unrelated to FMLA.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a customer service representative who was fired for performance issues during the same period of time in which she requested leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for her child could not support her FMLA discrimination claim. Burciaga v. Ravago