HR-Carnival.png

For those of who have yet to check it out or have never heard of the Carnival of HR, shame on you!

The Carnival of HR is dedicated to bringing together the best posts from the HR blogging community. This week, the Women of HR blog is hosting the Carnival. You’ll find links to 23 blog posts on various HR topics from “The Secret to Successful Job On-Boarding” to “The New Black of Benefits.”

So click on on over to this week’s carnival and have a great weekend.

Fueled by the remaining adrenaline from the Bruins 4-0 beating of the Canucks — 2 more wins… just 2 more — I am banging out this blog post just before the clock strikes 12. I have news of a new Twitter firing involving a “social media specialist” and an update on an NLRB action from May condoning the firing of a newspaper reporter for abusing Twitter.

All this, after the jump.

* * *

Continue reading

Thumbnail image for Supreme Court.jpgIn an employment discrimination action asserted under federal law, an employee-plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee if the plaintiff prevails. So too may an employer-defendant recover fees if it prevails and the court determines that the plaintiff’s suit is frivolous.

But what happens if an employee-plaintiff asserts multiple claims against an employer-defendant and only some of them are deemed frivolous? What, if anything, may the defendant recover in attorney’s fees?

The answer after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

weiner.jpg

“I just want to advise people watching at home, playing that now-popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans saying something that’s not true: Please assign a designated driver. This is going to be a long afternoon.” 

— Anthony Weiner (from the House Floor on 1/19/11)

You can’t make this stuff up, yo.

For some employment-law implications and practical tips concerning Anthony Weiner’s gaffes — both online and offline — check out this post from employment attorney and blogger Philip Miles at Lawffice Space.

I’m guessing that social media is not at the top of either side’s list of demands.

However, player tweets like this and, in particular, this one from Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall following the death of Osama bin Laden have some speculating that a new collective bargaining agreement could include restrictions on player use of social media.

What could those restrictions be? And will the players agree to them? 

More after the jump.

* * *

Continue reading

Wednesday night was crazazy, yo!

I had this dream that was I slaloming down a snowy mountain towards a giant fortress under a hail of gunfire. But the next thing I know, I wake up and I’m falling down this elevator shaft. And, just as I’m about to bite it, I find myself in a car submerged underwater, having just taken a 100-foot fall from the bridge above.

And then I’m in my bed.

It’s 3 am and I am dripping sweat. I tap the Joe Beimel bobblehead on my nightstand — I know I shouldn’t have told you about my totem but, damnit, I love my readers.

Just as I’m starting to get my bearings, what hit me next was ten times as powerful as any three-tiered Inception dream and it kept me up for the rest of the night:

Could the United States Supreme Court’s decision in
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, in which the Court affirmed the
theory of subordinate bias — or “cat’s paw” —  in an
action under USERRA, equally apply to claims brought
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)?
 

But, oh hells-to-the-yeah, the Tenth Circuit, sensing my angst, issued an opinion on Thursday answering all of my questions. So, while I grab my meds, you hit the jump and find out if the cat’s paw doctrine applies to ADEA claims.

* * *

Continue reading

Yesterday afternoon, Shaquille O’Neal (@Shaq) put an end to an illustrious 18-year NBA career in a single tweet:

shaq.jpg

As I type this post — during the second intermission of the Stanley Cup Finals — the hashtag #ShaqRetires is still trending on Twitter.

So, the question is, would you ever use social media to announce your retirement? 

I was reading a blog post from Jennifer L. Gokenbach at the Colorado Employer’s Law Blog, discussing how, as of yesterday, Colorado deems continuation of at-will employment to be sufficient consideration to support a non-competition agreement. In non-lawyer speak, that means that if an employee signs an agreement not-to-compete in Colorado after the employee starts working, on the condition that if the employee does not sign the agreement then the employee will be fired, the employer may later enforce that agreement.

 

That’s now the law in Colorado. Is that also the law in PA, NJ, and DE?

Delaware: Yes. Research & Trading Corp. v. Powell, 468 A.2d 1301, 1305 (Del.Ch.1983).

New Jersey: Yes. Hogan v. Bergen Brunswiq Corporation, 153 N.J.Super. 37, 378 A.2d 1164 (App.Div. 1977).

Pennsylvania: No. An agreement not to compete with a former employer must be supported by new consideration; i.e., a change in the conditions of employment (e.g., a raise, promotion, or other financial benefit). Maintenance Specialties, Inc. v. Gottus, 455 Pa. 327, 314 A.2d 279, 280 (Pa. 1974).

Continue reading

Many of you have seen the rat on the right. Well, maybe not that particular rat, but a large inflatable rat, nonetheless. Usually, a union will position the large rodent in front of a business or job site as part of a protest effort.

But, just because a union uses it as a protest symbol doesn’t make it legal. Does it?

Is the rat even legal?

Find out after the jump.

* * *

Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information