|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
State Employment Law Articles
Article Index » tennessee: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds At-Will Employee Can Be Forced to Sign a Noncompetition Agreement Upon Threat of Termination.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - October 02, 2009 On September 23, 2009, the Tennessee Court of Appeals, in Cummings Incorporated v. Terry J. Dorgan, Jr., No. M2008-00593-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2009), held that a noncompetition agreement signed by an at-will employee, under threat of termination, was enforceable. The appeals court specifically rejected the lower court's holding that the noncompetition agreement was unenforceable because it was not supported by consideration and because it allegedly was signed under duress. Rather, the court of appeals specifically held that the noncompetition agreement was enforceable despite the fact that the at-will employee was threatened with termination for refusing to sign it. Report Link New E-Discovery Rules for Tennessee.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - March 31, 2009 Civil litigation practice in Tennessee is going to change on July 1, 2009, which is when new rules on electronic discovery will go into effect. If you or your business store information on a computer or you use e-mail (who doesn't these days), and if you ever find yourself in a lawsuit, the new rules will be very important. Report Link Tennessee Court of Appeals Rules that An Employee Need Not be a Whistleblower To Establish a Common Law Retaliatory Discharge Claim.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - March 11, 2009 In a ruling handed down March 2, 2009, the Tennessee Court of Appeals determined that a claim of common law retaliatory discharge may be maintained where an employer's termination of an at will employee is substantially motivated by either the employee's refusal to participate in or to remain silent about an illegal activity or one which violates a clear and well-defined public policy. The employee need not report the alleged illegal activity to anyone. This holding substantially alters an earlier decision in which the Court of Appeals had held that a former employee must allege he reported alleged illegal activities to someone other than the individual who asked him to engage in the alleged activity. Report Link Tennessee Court Of Appeals Affirms Presumption of At-Will Employment and Explains the Applicable Statute of Limitations.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - October 16, 2008 On October 3, 2008, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the presumption of at-will employment and clarified the applicable statute of limitations for retaliatory discharge claims in Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance. Report Link Non-Compete Agreements Automatically Became Property of Successor Company, Tennessee Court Holds.Jackson Lewis LLP - May 01, 2008 When the owner of a meat processing company changed his business from a sole proprietorship to a corporation, his assignment of all business assets to the new entity automatically included the non-compete agreements entered into years earlier with two independent contractors, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled. This is the first case in that state to address the issue of whether such contracts can pass to a successor company without the express acquiescence of all parties. Report Link Tennessee Supreme Court Clarifies Individual Liability and Retaliation under State Law.Ford & Harrison LLP - January 18, 2008 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently issued a decision clarifying the standard for the imposition of individual liability of supervisors for sexual harassment under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). See Allen v. McPhee. The Court also defined the elements of a prima facie case of retaliation under the THRA. Report Link Reminder: Employers Could Lose License For Hiring Illegals Under New Law.Ogletree Deakins - January 08, 2008 Beginning January 1, 2008, Tennessee employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants or fail to adequately check the status of illegal immigrants could lose their business license. Specifically, the law prohibits employers from employing, recruiting or referring for a fee of employment, illegal aliens. Employers do not, however, violate the new law if they use the federal electronic work authorization verification service to verify the employment status of workers within 14 days of their start date. Moreover, employers do not violate the law if they obtain the worker’s lawful resident verification information in a timely manner (even if this information is later determined to be false). Report Link Tennessee Supreme Court Extends Workers' Comp Coverage To Telecommuters.Ogletree Deakins - December 26, 2007 The state’s highest court recently ruled that the Workers’ Compensation Act covers telecommuters injured while working from home, but only if the injury arises out of and occurs in the course of employment. The Tennessee Supreme Court went on to find that an employee who was attacked by a neighbor in her home office was not entitled to benefits because her injuries did not arise out of her employment. Moreover, according to the court, the “street risk” doctrine did not apply to this case because the employee’s injuries were not causally connected with the nature of the employment. Wait v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, No. M2007-00099-SC-R3-WC, Supreme Court of Tennessee (November 16, 2007). Report Link Tennessee High Court Finds Anti-Harassment Policy May Have Been Unreasonable.Ogletree Deakins - December 26, 2007 The Tennessee Supreme Court recently ruled against a local state university and its president on an employee’s claims of discrimination, but ruled in their favor on the employee’s retaliation claims. According to the state’s highest court, the employee who accused the president of sexual harassment could have reasonably believed that complaining about the harassment would have been futile because the university’s complaint procedure designates the president as the final decision-maker on all harassment claims. Report Link New Law Specifies Physicians' Non-Compete Agreement Requirements.Ogletree Deakins - August 27, 2007 On June 21, Governor Phil Bredesen signed House Bill 240/Senate Bill 1688, which was the General Assembly’s response to a 2005 case in which the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to enforce a non-compete provision in an employment contract between a physician and a clinic. In Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. v. Udom, the state’s highest court held that, except for restrictions specifically provided for by Tennessee’s corporate practice of medicine statute, “covenants not to compete are unenforceable against physicians.”
|
Count and Sub-TopicsArticles Found: 10NO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
2010 Ushers In Many Important Changes to Workplace Laws
Columbia
November 20, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsANNUAL EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATESacramento
December 1, 2009 Shaw ValenzaMonthly Webinar: Preventing Workplace Harassment (California and National)Webinar
December 1, 2009 LittlerCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplySan Francisco
December 1, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsThe Constangy Management Training Center "Employment Law 201"Tampa
December 2, 2009 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late to ComplyOntario
December 2, 2009 Fisher & PhillipsAudio Conference: Employee Caregivers Dealing With DementiaAudio Conference
December 2, 2009 Young ConawayClients, Adversaries and Witnesses: The Ethics of Communication in a Fast-Paced Legal World Web CastWebinar
December 4, 2009 Ford & HarrisonTaking Executive Compensation Hostage; What To DoWebinar
December 8, 2009 Baker HostetlerPREVENTING HARASSMENT AND OTHER EEO ISSUES AT WORK: IT’S ALL ABOUT RESPECT (AB 1825 COMPLIANCE)Sacramento
December 9, 2009 Shaw Valenza |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2009 elinfonet.com, llc.
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. | ||
Federal Article Feeds