Sorry for the late post gang. Rough night last night.
Today, I’m punting the ball over to my blogging buddy Phil Miles at Lawffice Space who has the scoop on a new age-discrimination matter that the Supreme Court has agreed to address. You can read Phil’s post here.
Of all employment claims presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, retaliation numero uno. It’s been that way since 2010.
There are three essential elements of a retaliation claim: (1) protected activity — opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process; (2) adverse action; and (3) causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
This post focuses on “opposition to discrimination.” Specifically, is withdrawing from what one perceives to be a sexual advance by one’s employer opposition to discrimination and, thus, a protected activity?
The answer after the jump…
On March 12, a federal court in PA resolved the first HUGE LinkedIn account dispute case involving an employee and former employer. I’ve written about out it a few times previously. (Here, here,and here).
The latest decision is involved. And rather than pontificate — too many syllables — I’ll defer to Venkat Balasubramani, who has the full scoop here.
My laziness knows no ends. Unless those ends involve a medium-rare burger, wrapped in bacon.
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Peter Ames. Peter Ames writes this piece on behalf of Office Genie, a desk and office space market place in the United Kingdom
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
Back in late January, a federal appellate court ruled that President Obama lacked the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board. More on that here.
In this press release issued yesterday, the NLRB announced that would seek Supreme Court review. Quoted below is the press release:
The National Labor Relations Board has determined not to seek en banc rehearing in Noel Canning v. NLRB, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held that the January 4, 2012 recess appointments of three members to the Board were invalid. The Board, in consultation with the Department of Justice, intends to file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court for review of that decision. The petition for certiorari is due on April 25, 2013.
Most parties (and their attorneys) expect that settlement communications are not admissible at trial. There’s even a federal rule of evidence on this subject. However, a federal court recently recognized an exception. But, with all due respect to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the opinion is a little dry.
So, after the jump, I spiffed it up a bit — Point Break style, brah — with a few takeaways for practicing attorneys.
This is your wake-up call.
Or sexually harass your co-workers.
Unless, of course, you consider my working Hollywood manuscript: “An EEOC Complaint Is Your Free Pass to Sexually Harass.” I know, the title needs work, but with C. Thomas Howell, Tawny Kitaen real star power and a producer.
** Immediately regrets sixth shot of Drambuie with breakfast **
There’s a point to all of this, and some employer tips too, after the jump…
* * *
“Damn you, Department of Labor! It’s 12:00:01 on March 8, 2013. I keep refreshing this stupid site and nothing is happening! I NEED FORMS!!!!”
— Absolutely no one in HR.
Actually, the forms have been available for some time now, slacker.
I had two topics on the brain to blog about:
{Go take a bath right now to cleanse yourself of the employment-law dorkness that hit you from reading No. 2}
Instead, after the jump, I have, well, you read the title to this post. These are my tweets (and several retweets) from the “EEOC Overview and HR Mixer” I attended yesterday — hashtag #ubernerd #EEOCHR
{Better grab the soap and turn on that bath again. You’ve been warned.}
This Sunday, Daylight Savings Time begins, as we push the clocks forward one hour at 2:00 AM on March 10, 2013.
Did someone say Clocks?
How does the time change affect the manner in which you pay hourly non-exempt employees who work the graveyard shift? I’ll let the Department of Labor explain:
The Employer Handbook Blog