Employment Law Information Network
Google
 
Web www.elinfonet.com
Main Navigation
Federal Law Articles
State Law Articles
HR Newsletter
HR Guidebook
HR Policy
HR Seminars
Employment Contracts
Employment Law Forums
Employment Law Blog
Employment Laws
Employee Rights
Workplace Headlines
Federal Article Feeds Federal Article Feeds
State Article Feeds State Article Feeds
Get Our FREE Daily or Weekly Newsletter!
Email:
Over 8,300 Subscribers! More Information

Friday, September 29, 2006

Week In Review (September 29, 2006)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=8088”>The Fourth Circuit Decision in Howard v. Winter Should Serve as a Warning to Take All Complaints of Harassment Seriously.</A>
“Be quick in action, but cautious in speech,” says the Chinese proverb. Nothing could be truer for a prudent human resources professional or supervisor. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Howard v. Winter, 446 F.3d 559 (May 4, 2006), should serve as a cautionary tale of what is to be expected when one fails to be quick in action in responding to a complaint about harassment, and worse, incautious in speaking with the employee who is complaining.
Located On: Helms Mulliss & Wicker

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Arrest and Conviction Records: So Why Aren’t the Felons Jellin?</A>
Recently, there has been significant media attention with regard to prior arrest and conviction records for public employees. For example, in the Village of Greendale, Wisconsin, a candidate was approved by the Police & Fire Commission to be on the eligibility list as a patrol officer. While the Village Fire & Police Commission later removed the candidate from the eligibility list, the case generated significant controversy.
Located On: Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]EEOC sues Land O’Lakes for severance language[/url]
Twin Cities Pioneer Press - September 26, 2006

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/29 at 09:23 AM
Week in Review • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, September 22, 2006

Week In Review (September 22, 2006)

This week’s most popular articles:

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=8042”>General Statement to Human Resources May Put Employer On Notice of Sexual Harassment By Co-Worker (pdf).</A>
Conversation put employer on notice.
Located On: Nexsen Pruet

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >California Adopts Highest Minimum Wage.</A>
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed into law a $1.25 increase in the state minimum wage. The increase will take place in two parts. The first increase will raise the minimum wage from the current $6.75 per hour to $7.50 on January 1, 2007. The second increase of $0.50 will raise the minimum wage to $8.00 per hour on January 1, 2008. It is estimated that these increases will directly affect approximately 1.4 million California workers. The $8.00 per hour minimum wage as of January 2008 will, along with Massachusetts, be the highest in the country.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Workplace theft: Where do employees get these ideas?[/url]
USA Today - September 20, 2006

 

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/22 at 08:20 AM
Week in Review • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, September 15, 2006

Week In Review (September 15, 2006)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=7973”>United States Supreme Court Delivers Double-Whammy for Employers: Retaliation and Discrimination Just Got Easier To Prove (pdf).</A>
Retaliation and Discrimination Just Got Easier To Prove.
Located On: Jones Walker

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Employee handbook does not constitute an employment contract</A>
Court finds disciplinary procedures did not alter employee’s at will employment status.
Located On: Ogletree Deakins

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]10 crimes of work fashion[/url]
CNN - September 11, 2006

 

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/15 at 09:53 AM
Week in Review • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, September 08, 2006

Week In Review (September 8, 2006)

Ford & Harrison and Fisher & Phillips capture this week’s honors!

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=7896”>Things Don’t Always Go Better With Coke! (pdf).</A>
On August 31, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York stunned the home care industry once again, by affirming its 2004 decision in Coke v. Long Island Care at Home. The court’s earlier decision had been vacated by the Supreme Court and remanded for further review in light of a Department of Labor (“DOL”) Memorandum on the companionship exemption’s coverage of agency-employed home care workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >“That’s Not Harassment—We Just Have A ‘Sexually Charged’ Atmosphere”.</A>
The California Supreme Court recently unanimously held that sexual antics and sexual language by the writers for the television show “Friends” was not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment in violation of California State law.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Help staff be winners, not whiners[/url]
Maine Today - September 01, 2006

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/08 at 10:07 AM
Employment Law • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

Friday, September 01, 2006

Week In Review (September 1, 2006)

Congrats to Nixon Peabody for this weeks most popular Federal and State article!

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=7851”>Denying Light-Duty Assignments to Pregnant Employees (pdf).</A>
Swift Transportation Co., a Phoenix-based trucking company, provided light-duty assignments only to employees out on workers’ compensation leaves; i.e., those who had sustained on-the-job injuries. Employees with offduty injuries or disabling conditions, including pregnant employees, were denied light-duty jobs. Amanda Reeves, a pregnant over-the road truck driver, sued Swift under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act when Swift refused her request to be assigned to an available light-duty position. Swift then fired her two weeks after she announced she was pregnant and after she refused to return to her regular driving job.
Located On: Nixon Peabody LLP.

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New Proof-of-Age Requirement for New York Employers When a Worker Claims to Be between 18 and 25 years old (pdf).</A>
A little-noticed amendment to New York’s Labor Law imposes a new record-keeping requirement on New York employers. We are all familiar with the requirement that, for most types of employment, minors under age 18 must provide employers with employment certificates, commonly known as “working papers,” to lawfully hold jobs. Employers must keep the employment certificate on file during the minor’s employment and produce it to the New York Department of Labor (DOL) on demand. Employers are subject to penalties and fines if they hire a minor without obtaining an employment certificate.
Located On: Nixon Peabody LLP.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]6 rules for prospering in the workplace[/url]
Delaware Online - August 27, 2006

 

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/01 at 09:30 AM
Employment Law • (0) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
 
Terms of Use  |  Privacy  |  Advertising  |  About  |  Contact  |  For Law Firms  |  Partners

Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
All Rights Reserved.

The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.

This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations.  As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law.  None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice.  The information should not be relied upon for legal advice.  We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created.  Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege.  If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area.  If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association.

All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.