At the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Daniel Schwartz wrote a two-part piece about a Connecticut school superintendent who was forced to resign after making some lighthearted remarks on Facebook. The comment that appears to have gotten the superintendent in the most trouble was this one referring to a personnel matter:
(After the jump…)
There are plenty of good reasons that plaintiff’s lawyers heart the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). It has a wide scope of coverage for employees with disabilities. It’s remedial purposes are incredibly broad. A plaintiff can go directly to court with a claim under the NJLAD without vetting it with a state administrative agency first. A plaintiff can stay out of federal court where the odds of losing on an employment discrimination case on summary judgment are much higher than they are in state court.
As if the plaintiff’s bar didn’t need any further reasons to love the NJLAD.
Well, here’s one more…
A few weeks ago, I came across an article by Terrence O’Brien on switched.com, “Facebook ‘Subscribe to’ Feature Lets You Follow Your Friend’s Every Move.”
Facebook is testing a new feature that lets you subscribe to a specific user’s content. In practice, this means receiving a notification every time that user updates their status, posts a new photo, link, video or note, and Mashable aptly dubs it the ‘Stalker Button.’ Taken at face value, this would appear to be a direct answer to the ability to “follow” a user on Twitter…
after the jump…
So far, I love Justia.
Not only have they designed and set me up with The Employer Handbook,
but every week I get an email from them suggesting labor and employment
law stories that would make great blog posts.
Its storybook time, folks. Let’s read the juicy complaint together after the jump
I remember about a month ago reading a post on Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog about a shooting involving a Connecticut employer. Actually, at the time, I only skimmed the article. Nine dead. Tragic event. But it happened several hundred miles away.
On September 9, in Northeast Philly, my backyard, an employee who claimed she was fed up with years of constant harassment from neighbors and co-workers, returned to work after her shift had ended clutching a .357 magnum. According to a news report from Philly.com, she pointed the gun at two unarmed security guards — the employer had already taken some precautions against a potential episode of workplace violence — and ordered them to the gate. After the guards allowed the armed employee to enter, she went to a break room where she found four employees. After ordering one to leave, the disgruntled employee opened fire on the other three. Two died at the scene. One is in critical condition
I offer five preventative solutions after the jump…
Note: This article has nothing to do with the Red Sox. Nothing at all. Just Massachusetts. And Massachusetts employment law at that. It’s ok, though. Still worth a read IMHO. Good advice for my PA, NJ, and DE readers.
I was checking out Gruntled Employees — get it? “gruntled” … as in the opposite of disgruntled … yeah, anyway — and I came across a a new law requiring companies to notify employees about any potentially negative information added to their personnel files.
Hear me out. I’m on a roll with this…after the jump.