join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Employment Law Blog

Category: Week in Review

Friday, September 12, 2008

Week In Review (September 12, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14814”>‘Tis the (Political) Season: NLRB Clarifies Its Rules on Politics at Work.</A>
Basic workplace etiquette dictates that religion, sex, and politics are taboo conversation topics. But in this contentious election season, the American workplace is politically charged, with many employees eager to speak out on issues that affect their employment. Of course, employee expressions of political sentiment are not limited to presidential election years. Pending legislation can stimulate arguments, and as many employers saw in May, 2006, proposed immigration reforms sparked nationwide protests, disrupting some employers’ workplaces.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Mandatory Sick Leave to be Removed from November Ballot.</A>
This morning, the Service Employees International Union announced that it will ask to remove Issue 4, the Ohio Healthy Families Act, from the November ballot.
Located On: Baker Hostetler LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Absurd case shows mess caused by illegal hirings[/url]
HeraldNet - September 08, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 09/12 at 09:42 AM
Week in Review
Friday, August 08, 2008

Week In Review (August 8, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14419”>Department of Labor Issues Proposed FMLA Regulations.</A>
On January 28, 2008, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 to provide up to 26 weeks of job protected family leave to care for injured members of the Armed Forces, and up to 12 weeks of leave because of a qualifying exigency arising out of an employee’s parent, child, or spouse’s active duty or call to active duty. Under the amendment, a maximum of 26 weeks of leave may be taken during a 12-month period for any combina tion of the FMLA-qualifying events. Then, on February 11, 2008, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued much-anticipated proposed regulations for implementing the FMLA. These rules, which seek to clarify existing regulations, were open for public comment for a 60-day period, but the comment period closed on April 11, 2008. Although the DOL has not summarized or published the comments to date, it plans to complete the review process and adopt the new regulations prior to January 2009, when President Bush leaves office. Additionally, although this release does not include specific proposals for implementing the new leave provisions for family members of military personnel, the DOL did seek public comments on such rules.
Located On: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Legal Changes for Employers (pdf)</A>
Laws and sausages have something in common.
Located On: Jones Walker

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Interview Questions: Legal or Illegal?[/url]
Workforce Management - August 04, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 08/08 at 12:13 PM
Week in Review
Friday, July 25, 2008

Week In Review (July 25, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14224”>Election of Remedies Provision Does not Violate Title VII.</A>
Creating a split among the federal appeals courts, the Second Circuit recently held that including an election of remedies provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is not unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. See Richardson v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (July 7, 2008). The clause at issue in this case provided that disputes over unlawful discrimination would be subject to the CBA’s grievance procedure but would not be arbitrable if the employee filed a discrimination charge with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) (the state civil rights agency, who was also the employer in this case).
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New Hampshire Amends Overtime Law to Encompass Many Route Sales Drivers.</A>
On July 9, 2008, New Hampshire enacted “An Act Relative to the Minimum Hourly Rate of Compensation.” This new law has significant implications for New Hampshire employers, as it broadens the scope of the state’s overtime requirement by eliminating the “motor carrier” exemption to New Hampshire’s overtime law for delivery drivers and sales merchandisers. The new law also revises the manner in which employers must calculate the overtime rate of pay for delivery drivers, sales merchandisers, and all employees paid on a salary and commission basis. The Act becomes effective on September 7, 2008.
Located On: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Go Ahead, Insult the Boss (Everyone Will Be Doing It)[/url]
Journal Now - July 18, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 07/25 at 09:28 AM
Week in Review
Friday, July 18, 2008

Week In Review (July 18, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14174”>Joint Commission Alert Targets Intimidating/Disruptive Behavior: Aims to Stamp Out the “Equal Opportunity Harasser”.</A>
Recognizing that intimidating and disruptive behavior can compromise the delivery of quality healthcare, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) on July 9, 2008, issued a Sentinel Event Alert focusing upon its new requirements to address such behavior. The Sentinel Event Alert suggests what healthcare organizations must do to address all kinds of harassing and disruptive behavior, not just conduct made illegal under workplace discrimination and harassment laws.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Missouri Enacts Tough New Immigration Law, Targets Employers.</A>
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has signed into law H.R. 1549, a stringent new bill targeting illegal immigration. As of January 1, 2009, employers of unauthorized workers will face potential loss of state contracts and/or tax breaks, suspension or even revocation of their right to do business in the state, and possibly a civil trial in Missouri state court.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Not Just a Ladies’ Room[/url]
Wall Street Journal (via Google) - July 15, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 07/18 at 09:21 AM
Week in Review
Friday, July 11, 2008

Week In Review (July 11, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14085”>Education Labor Letter: New Requirements for 403(b) Plans.</A>
403(b) plans are tax-qualified retirement plans maintained only by nonprofit organizations and public school systems. Plan assets are invested in annuity contracts or custodial accounts instead of a tax-exempt trust, like 401(k) plan assets. Historically, 403(b) plans were subject to very little regulation by the IRS and DOL.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >How Does California’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Impact Employers?</A>
As most affected employers are aware, California recently became the second state (after Massachusetts) to recognize same-sex marriages. In In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and is a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law also invalidated California’s Proposition 22, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]What job interviewers shouldn’t ask[/url]
Star Telegram - July 07, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 07/11 at 02:23 PM
Week in Review
Friday, June 27, 2008

Week In Review (June 27, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13975”>Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiffs May Use Section 1981 to Sue for Retaliation.</A>
On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, (No. 06-1431), that employees may bring claims based on or arising from retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981, one of a number of federal laws addressing discrimination, provides that “[a]ll persons . . . have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Although the text of the statute does not specifically mention retaliation, the Court held that Section 1981 nevertheless encompasses retaliation claims.
Located On: Hogan & Hartson LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >D.C. Passes the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008.</A>
Washington, D.C. has become the second city, after San Francisco, to pass a law that requires employers to provide paid sick leave to all employees. After significant amendment including input from the employer community, the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 was passed by the D.C. Council in March. Following approval by Mayor Adrian Fenty and a 30-day review process by Congress, the Act was approved on May 13, 2008. Effective November 13, 2008, mandatory sick leave provisions will apply to even the smallest employers.
Located On: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]8 Big Mistakes You Could Be Making At Work[/url]

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 06/27 at 07:43 PM
Week in Review
Wednesday, June 25, 2008

IRS Increases Mileage Rates Due To Gas Prices

On June 23rd the Internal Revenue Service announced an increase in the standard mileage rates for the final six months of 2008.

The rate will increase to 58.5 cents a mile for all business miles driven from July 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2008. This is an increase of eight (8) cents from the 50.5 cent rate in effect for the first six months of 2008.

The IRS announced the unusual mid-year increase in recognition of recent gasoline price increases. The IRS normally updates the mileage rates once a year in the fall for the next calendar year.

“Rising gas prices are having a major impact on individual Americans. Given the increase in prices, the IRS is adjusting the standard mileage rates to better reflect the real cost of operating an automobile,” said IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. “We want the reimbursement rate to be fair to taxpayers.”

While gasoline is a significant factor in the mileage figure, other items enter into the calculation of mileage rates, such as depreciation and insurance and other fixed and variable costs.

The optional business standard mileage rate is used to compute the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business use in lieu of tracking actual costs. This rate is also used as a benchmark by the federal government and many businesses to reimburse their employees for mileage.

To view the IRS announcement, click here: IRS News Release

Employers should consider increasing the reimbursement rates to match the new IRS rate. Generally, employers must reimburse employees for travel expenses incurred in the course of work. For example, in California, Labor Code section 2802, subdivision (a), requires an employer to indemnify its employees for expenses they necessarily incur in the discharge of their duties. Note that in California, paying the IRS rate does not guarantee that the employer has fully reimbursed the employee for actual travel expenses. The California Supreme Court recently addressed employee travel expense reimbursement in a case titled Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shopper, Inc.

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted, Esq.
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC
San Diego Employment Law Attorneys

Friday, June 20, 2008

Week In Review (June 20, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13900”>Supreme Court Rules That Plaintiffs May Use Section 1981 to Sue for Retaliation.</A>
On May 27, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, (No. 06-1431), that employees may bring claims based on or arising from retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981, one of a number of federal laws addressing discrimination, provides that “[a]ll persons . . . have the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Although the text of the statute does not specifically mention retaliation, the Court held that Section 1981 nevertheless encompasses retaliation claims.
Located On: Hogan & Hartson LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >D.C. Passes the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008.</A>
Washington, D.C. has become the second city, after San Francisco, to pass a law that requires employers to provide paid sick leave to all employees. After significant amendment including input from the employer community, the Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act of 2008 was passed by the D.C. Council in March. Following approval by Mayor Adrian Fenty and a 30-day review process by Congress, the Act was approved on May 13, 2008. Effective November 13, 2008, mandatory sick leave provisions will apply to even the smallest employers.
Located On: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Your boss shouldn’t read your text or e-mail messages without an OK, court says[/url]
LA Times (Registration Required) - June 19, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 06/20 at 10:03 AM
Week in Review

Review of Employee Text Messages Deemed Invasion of Privacy

Workplace privacy rights can be tricky. Consider the following scenario: A company provides two-way alpha-numeric pagers to employees. The pager service plan allows for transmission of 25,000 characters per month, beyond which an overage fee is assessed. Employees are told to use the pagers for business purposes, and that they will have to reimburse the company for overage fees on account of personal use. A company policy warns employees that it may monitor electronic communications.

There are overages, but the employees do pay for them. But the company decides to conduct an audit because (1) it wants to make sure that employees are not asked to pay overage fees for business transmissions; (2) it wants to assess whether 25,000 characters per month is an efficient limit. To conduct the audit, the company prints and reviews transcripts of the text messages. Does the company act within its rights?

No, according to a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case titled Quon v. Arch Wireless. The case involved the Ontario Police Department’s review of text messages sent and received by police Sgt. Jeff Quon. The audited text messages included personal communications, including sexually explicit comments. Quon and others he texted sued the Department for violations of constitutional privacy rights. The trial court ruled against the employees, but the Ninth Circuit reinstated the case.

The court reasoned as follows:

(1) Employees may have constitutionally-based reasonable expectations of privacy in the workplace. This includes the expectation that employers will not monitor private communications. 

(2) Employers may dispel the expectation of privacy by warning employees that communications may be monitored. Like many employers, the Department had a “Computer Usage, Internet and E-mail Policy.” The policy limited use of electronic devices to Department business, and advised employees that the Department may monitor employee use of the systems, and that users should have no expectation of privacy.

(3) However, the “operational reality” was different. In practice, the manager responsible for the pagers told employees that he would not audit pager messages as long as employees paid for overage fees. They paid the fees, and therefore it was reasonable for them to expect that the Department would not monitor their communications. So the practice defeated the policy. The court suggested that the policy would have been sufficient to dispel the expectation of privacy, but for the manager’s assurances and practices to the contrary.

(4) Because the employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in connection with the text messages, intrusion by the employer must be reasonable—but here it was not reasonable. Employers are permitted, during the course of workplace misconduct investigations, or for other business purposes, to review or monitor employee communications—but the employer must demonstrate that the intrusion is reasonable. ““Reasonable” means there was a reasonable basis for conducting the search, and that the scope of the search (or the degree of intrusiveness) was reasonable. The court determined that the Department could have used less intrusive means. It could have, for example, looked at the number dialed without reading the text. Or it could have asked the employees to black out personal messages before reviewing the transcript. 

Note that the decision was made in the context of a public employer, but employee rights in private industry may be affected by this decision. The court examined the federal Fourth Amendment as well as California’s constitutional privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment applies to government action—here the police department was the government entity.  But the California constitution applies to public and private employers alike.

Constitutional privacy rights in the private sector have not been well defined by the courts. You can expect further developments in area of workplace privacy rights, particularly given technological advances that make employee monitoring increasingly easy. 

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC

Friday, May 30, 2008

Week In Review (May 30, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13635”>Employers and Insurers Meet GINA—The Newest Addition to the Federal Discrimination Law Family.</A>
On May 21, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (H.R. 493), which prohibits discrimination by employers and insurers based on genetic information.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New York Construction Contractors to Need 10-Hour OSHA Course for Public Works Projects.</A>
All public works contracts for New York state and municipal construction jobs of $250,000 or more will require certification that employees performing work under the contract will have completed successfully the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) 10-hour construction course, according to a state law becoming effective July 18, 2008. The course includes topics such as excavations, electrical safety, ladders, fall protection, chemical hazard communication and other safety and health topics.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Body language often tells truth in the workplace[/url]
Sun Sentinel - May 27, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 05/30 at 04:39 PM
Week in Review

Tortilla Maker Accused Of Religious Intolerance Against Muslim Workers

As reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on May 28th here, a group of Muslim workers allege they were fired by a Mission Foods tortilla factory for refusing to wear uniforms that they say were immodest by Islamic standards.

“Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves.” The women have filed a religious discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A Mission Foods spokesperson stated that the women were not fired, but rather suspended, because they refused to comply with a company uniform policy.

Presumably the claim is based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964. The law prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.

The case will likely focus on whether (1) the clothing in question related to a religious practice or belief; (2) whether the employer could have reasonably accommodated traditional Islamic clothing in the factory; or whether (3) accommodating the clothing would have imposed an undue hardship on the employer. Perhaps the company had health, safety, or other reasons for the uniform policy. In the context of industrial machinery, loose clothing may be dangerous. In the context of food processing, it may not be sanitary. The news report did not provide the employer’s justification. 

Noting an increase in discrimination after September 11, 2001, the EEOC has published guidelines for the religious accommodation of Muslims and ethnic groups from Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries here and here.

The guidelines include the following FAQ:

Q: “I am a Sikh man and the turban that I wear is a religiously-mandated article of clothing. My supervisor tells me that my turban makes my coworkers ‘uncomfortable,’ and has asked me to remove it. What should I do?””

“If a turban is religiously-mandated, you should ask your employer for a religious accommodation to wear it at work. Your employer has a legal obligation to grant your request if it does not impose a burden, or an ‘undue hardship,’ under Title VII. Claiming that your coworkers might be ‘upset’ or ‘uncomfortable’ when they see your turban is not an undue hardship.”

The EEOC reports that in Fiscal Year 2007, the agency received 2,880 charges of religious discrimination. EEOC resolved 2,525 religious discrimination charges and recovered $6.4 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation).

Submitted By:
Christopher W. Olmsted
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC
San Diego Employment Law Attorneys

Friday, May 23, 2008

Week In Review (May 23, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13582”>What Employers Should Know About Insurance For Employment Claims (pdf).</A>
Traditional business insurance policies generally exclude employment claims from coverage.
Located On: Nexsen Pruet

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New Jersey Governor Corzine Signs Paid Family Leave Act.</A>
Despite intense opposition from the business community, on May 2, 2008, Governor Corzine signed the highly contested paid family leave bill that provides employees up to six weeks of partial wage replacement to care for a newborn or newly adopted child or to care for a sick child, parent or spouse. New Jersey is now the third state, in addition to California and Washington, to offer paid family leave benefits to employees.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Weight discrimination could be as common as racial bias[/url]
USA Today - May 21, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 05/23 at 09:03 AM
Week in Review
Thursday, May 22, 2008

President Signs Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

On May 21st, President Bush signed The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) into law. According to the National Institutes of Health’s National Human Genome Research Institute, “GINA protects Americans from being treated unfairly because of differences in their DNA that may affect their health. The new law prevents discrimination from health insurers and employers.” (Click here for more NIH comments.)


The new law is the culmination of a decade-long debate and a series of legislative efforts to deal with the specter of genetic discrimination. Supporters of the law cited a few instances of genetic discrimination, but not widespread abuse.

GINA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of genetic information.

The term “genetic information” means information about (i) an employee’s genetic tests, (ii) the genetic tests of family members of an employee, and (iii) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of an employee.

Employers are prohibited from acquiring genetic information, with certain exceptions. Some exceptions include: (1) where an employer inadvertently requests or requires family medical history of the employee or family member of the employee; (2) indirectly, as part of a wellness program; (3) as part of an FMLA medical certification; (4) where the information involved is to be used for genetic monitoring of the biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace; and in a few limited other circumstances.

In the event that an employer does acquire genetic information, the new law requires strict confidentiality, in the manner dictated by the ADA.

Employees who violate GINA will be vulnerable to employee lawsuits and government agency enforcement actions.

Employer advocates complain about the litigation provisions. They have also voiced concerns that GINA further complicates the confusing maze of state and federal medical privacy laws, as well as the numerous state genetic nondiscrimination laws.

Employers and legal counsel have ample time to evaluate the impact. The parts of the law relating to health insurers will take effect by May 2009, and those relating to employers will take effect by November 2009.

According to the NIH, “the law was needed to help ease concerns about discrimination that might keep some people from getting genetic tests that could benefit their health. The law also enables people to take part in research studies without fear that their DNA information might be used against them in health insurance or the workplace.”

Although there are no reports of widespread genetic discrimination, employee medical exams are common. As reported by the AP here, “a 2001 study by the American Management Association showed that nearly two-thirds of major U.S. companies require medical examinations of new hires. Fourteen percent conduct tests for susceptibility to workplace hazards, 3 percent for breast and colon cancer, and 1 percent for sickle cell anemia, while 20 percent collect information about family medical history.”

During the next 18 months, undoubtedly employment law attorneys and HR experts will distill the new law and offer compliance advice. To get a head start, read the text of GINA here.

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC

Friday, May 16, 2008

Week In Review (May 16, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13512”>International Business Travelers May Face Warrantless Laptop Searches by U.S. Border Agents.</A>
Federal border agents did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches in examining the contents of a traveler’s laptop without any basis for believing the device contains contraband, a federal appeals court in San Francisco has ruled. United States v. Arnold, No. 06-50581 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2008). The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >California’s Anti-SLAPP Law Protects Letter to Employer’s Customers About Contemplated Trade Secrets Litigation.</A>
The California Court of Appeal has ruled that an employer’s attorney’s letter to the employer’s customers concerning potential trade secrets litigation was protected speech under California’s anti-SLAPP (“strategic lawsuit against public participation”) law, Cal. Civ. Code Section 425.16. Neville v. Chudacoff, No. B198253 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2008). The court held that the letter directly related to the employer’s claims and that, when it was written, the employer seriously and in good faith was contemplating litigation against the employee. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing the employee’s claim against the employer’s attorney.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]How to handle those wacky interview questions[/url]
Orlando Sentinel - May 14, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 05/16 at 07:07 AM
Week in Review
Friday, May 09, 2008

Week In Review (May 9, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=13436”>Auto Dealership Update: The Lawsuit Du Jour.</A>
This might have already happened at your dealership: your payroll clerk is exasperated because the sales people are not punching their time cards. She knows that under federal law, the dealership is obligated to pay sales people their commissions or minimum wage for all hours worked, whichever is higher. But if they have low commissions and they don’t punch in and out each day, she has no way to accurately calculate their hours or their pay. 
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New Jersey Supreme Court Expands Individual’s Right to Privacy.</A>
In a case of first impression, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Internet users have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to subscriber information they provide to Internet service providers (“ISP”). The Court in New Jersey v. Shirley Reid held that law enforcement officials may obtain such information only by serving a grand jury subpoena on the ISP. This April 21, 2008, decision likely will make it more difficult to prosecute, in certain circumstances, an employee that tampers with employer information systems. The case highlights the need for employers to reexamine their policies and procedures for employee use of company information systems and the expectation of privacy of employees in the workplace.
Located On: Jackson Lewis LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Breach of office etiquette can have serious consequences[/url]
Baltimore Sun - May 06, 2008

Posted by Patrick Della Valle on 05/09 at 06:52 AM
Week in Review
Page 1 of 5 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›