Take it from the employment lawyers. Maybe, not the best idea…
The Employer Handbook Blog
Man rushed to hospital, put in ICU after winning office holiday party eggnog-chugging contest: http://t.co/mnEJ8IZHQ7 pic.twitter.com/RdtauVglFv
— ABC News (@ABC) December 23, 2014
I meant to write about this a week or so ago after I saw Dan Packel’s article at Law360. But, then, I got sidetracked with a bunch of NLRB stuff. Until, yesterday, Lizzy McLellan’s article at The Legal Intelligencer brought me back.
So, here’s the deal. The basic rule in PA has always been that, for a non-compete to be enforceable, it needs to be entered into when employment begins (i.e., as consideration for offering employment), or there needs to be some independent consideration to support it (e.g., a raise, bonus, promotion, etc.).
However, some outlier judicial decisions in PA have concluded that PA’s Uniform Written Obligations Act magically adds consideration to any agreement with the words “intending to be legally bound.”
So just how did the employer snatch victory from the jaws of defeat after botching a diabetic employee’s request to work a modified schedule?
Find out after jump…
Much in the same way that you don’t need to accommodate an employee who shows up drunk on Mike’s Hard Lemonade.
This is the stuff they don’t teach you in your PHR course curriculum, amirite?
More after the jump…
The folks over at Blogging4Jobs.com have compiled a selection of the best blog posts on discrimination, contracts, & compliance for the December ’14 edition of the Employment Law Blog Carnival.
Be sure to check it out.
If you entered a time machine a few months ago and came out today to read this post, you missed a lot.
The Kansas City Royals made the World Series. Grammy Award winning rapper Eve wed entrepreneur Maximillion Cooper at Cala Jondal Beach in Ibiza, Spain. And a big-time Ebola scare.
Yeah, that Ebola scare was really something. But, it kinda just came and went, didn’t it? We haven’t had a new Ebola case in the U.S. in months, which makes the timing of Monday’s release of “Public Guidance on Protecting Civil Rights While Responding to the Ebola Virus” from the U.S. Department of Justice a bit off.
After two days of organized-labor-themed oxygen-sucking blog posts, I’m gonna lighten it up today, with some holiday co-worker gift-giving ideas for you.
Taking my cue from CareerBuilder’s 2014 list of the most unusual holiday gifts exchanged in the workplace, please consider nixing these from your list:
- A box of Hot Pockets®.
Cue the haters.
Following a decision last Thursday permitting employees to use company email to badmouth you and unionize, the National Labor Relations Board ended last week by passing a new rule, which, in its words, updated “its representation-case procedures to modernize and streamline the process for resolving representation disputes.”
In other words, faster union elections and more of ’em.
Details on this new rule and what employers can do about it, after the jump…
YES, THAT’S RIGHT. NO BIG DEAL.
Hey, if you’re a big employment dork like me, (vote Handbook!), you’ve already read a bunch of blog posts, and you’ll read several more about how the sky is falling after yesterday’s NLRB decision, in which the Board held that employees may use company email to discuss the terms and conditions of employment.
Yes, this decision extends to any workplace — not just unionized workplaces — that is covered by the National Labor Relations Act. And, yes, it may help your employees communicate with one another to form a union (gasp!) or otherwise discuss working conditions, but…
Monday kinda sucked for the EEOC.
The agency that made scrutiny of employee background checks a top priority under its current Strategic Enforcement Plan has been ordered by a federal court to turn over its own background check policy to an employer whom it is suing for a criminal background check policy that allegedly had a disparate impact on black employees.
*** smiles, grinds teeth, and inhales deeply ***
More after the jump…
* * *