Last month, the U.S. Department of Labor published new fact sheets on its website. Employers and employees alike will want to check these out:
Here is a link to the FLSA fact sheet. This fact sheet provides general information concerning the FLSA’s prohibition of retaliating against any employee who has filed a complaint or cooperated in an investigation.
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post”. So, let’s get right to today’s question:
That Eddie Employee is a gamer.
While filling up at the Gas-N-Gulp on his way to work, out of nowhere, a punk teen whacked Eddie across the face with a skateboard. Youch! Jaw broken, Eddie got back into his car, drove to work, and somehow managed to stumble into HR. Spitting out blood and teeth, Eddie asked Agatha Administrator for a week off from work to go to the hospital to have surgery to fix his ugly mug and recuperate. However, as Eddie slurred and lisped out his request, he never specifically mentioned the letters “F-M-L-A”.
As reported here in September, the State of New Jersey was recommending passage of the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act.
Well, welcome to the party, pal. (Or is it Powell?). Last week, NJ became the 47th state to adopt a version of the uniform trade secrets act as Governor Christie signed the NJTSA into law. The new law provides for both legal relief (damages for actual loss an unjust enrichment, punitive damages, attorney’s fees) in the event of an actual misappropriation of trade secrets, and injunctive relief should there be an actual or threatened misappropriation.
That is the question that a former Starbucks employee is asking the NJ Supreme Court to answer. More on this case and what it could mean for actions asserted under NJ’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) after the jump…
Last year, here and here, I discussed legislation that would prohibit Philadelphia employers from asking job applicants about certain arrests and making any personnel decisions based on records of an arrest that does not result in a conviction. That legislation is now the law. That law is the Philadelphia Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Act.
Let’s practice…
Back in 2005, a Pennsylvania federal court recognized in this opinion that an employee’s FMLA rights become sacrosanct upon requesting FMLA — even if the employee is not yet FMLA-eligible — provided that the employee has satisfied all FMLA service requirements when the FMLA begins. Where would this most likely arise? Why with pregnancy, of course. Something like:
- Female employee starts work;
- A few months later, she gets pregnant and requests FMLA to commence upon childbirth; and
- She gets fired before giving birth.
Hey, those sound like the facts of Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., a case decided in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals last week. More on this case, together with a big helping of FMLA tips for employers, after the jump…
* * *
I’ve been slacking, folks.
Not since November have I blogged about a defendant’s motion to compel a motion to compel an individual’s social-media content. Since then, several more Pennsylvania courts have weighed in on this burgeoning area.
I’m sorry to each and every one of you. I have let you down. Will you ever stop judging forgive me?
Oh, let’s kiss and make nice. I’ll get you caught up on the social-media-litigation goings-ons after the jump…
According to FacesOfLawsuitAbuse.org, the lawsuit that keeps those lawyer jokes flowing is…
Convict sues couple he kidnapped for not helping him evade police. A man who kidnapped a couple at knifepoint while he was running from the police is now suing the victims, claiming that they promised to hide him in exchange for an unspecified amount of money. The plaintiff, currently in jail, is seeking $235,000 for the alleged “breach of contract.”
And from the ridiculous to the sublime just-about-as ridiculous…
Yesterday, in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar employment-discrimination lawsuits by ministers against their churches. More on this decision and some helpful reminders for private-sector employers after the jump…
Starting this year, employees who receive severance pay in excess of 40% of the average annual wage in Pennsylvania will have their unemployment compensation benefits offset. Currently, that 40% number is $17,853.00.
As Jonathan Segal, Legislative Director for PA State Council of SHRM, notes here, employers should be very careful not to represent anything in a severance agreement that an employee could reasonably construe as suggesting that this change in the law will not apply. He adds here that employers should also consider beefing up their severance-agreement-release language to confirm that the release is effective even if severance is offset or reduced under PA law.
You can read more on the change in the law here.
The Employer Handbook Blog