Articles Discussing Evidence Issues In Labor And Employment Law Cases.

By: Deleting Relevant Text Messages Can Cost You

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit in Jones v. Riot Hospitality Group, 2024 WL 927669 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2024) affirmed the dismissal of an employee’s claims against her employer and found that terminating sanctions were appropriate where the employee deleted relevant

In Buckmaster v. The National Railroad Passenger Corp. d/b/a Amtrak, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed whether an employee had offered any evidence of discrimination or retaliation beyond his own speculative beliefs and personal disagreement with his employer’s legitimate business reason for terminating his employment.

Courts regularly act as gatekeepers in determining what evidence juries are entitled to hear at trial.  In Nuccio v. Shell Pipeline Co., LP, a federal district court barred an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determination letter because its probative value was outweighed by its prejudice. No. 19-446-WBV-DPC (E.D. La. Dec.

Paul Weiner recommends collecting computers and encryption keys from departing employees. 

LegaltechNews

View Article  (Subscription required)

Goldberg Segalla’s Jim Rozak offers insights into why we should demand a well-pleaded complaint or counterclaim. Jim discusses procedural pleading motions and weighs the costs and benefits of bringing such a motion at each stage of a dispute. Jim explains the value of taking control of the litigation at the

As the week begins with new lexicon coming out of our nation’s capital, a recent federal court of appeals ruling reminds us that, in most situations, it’s the employer’s assessment of the facts, not the employee’s “alternative facts,” that matter when deciding the appropriate punishment for employee performance or misconduct issues. And, perhaps more importantly, the ruling reminds us that the mere fact an employee has a disability, or has requested or taken FMLA leave, does not act as a “get out of jail” card for such performance or misconduct issues.

In the waning days of its current term, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in California v. Riley that police officers generally violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches by conducting a warrantless search of a smartphone seized incident to an arrest. The ruling turned largely on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a long-established exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Although the Fourth Amendment and the relevant exception will rarely apply to private employers, the high court’s decision remains highly relevant for private employers whose workplace searches, like police searches, increasingly encounter personal smartphones, whether as part of a bring your own device program or not, and other mobile devices.