Search
The Employer Handbook BlogThe Ambien alternative a/k/a NLRB FY11 operations statistics
Yawn…
The Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board recently released a 10-page summary of operations for FY 2011. But, you can find a short summary here.
Relax! Businesses don’t want employee Facebook passwords.
But, if you think they do — maybe you read this article last week — then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, sucker.
Come on! The sky isn’t falling. Demanding social media access from employees and potential hires and is most definitely the exception and not the rule. And I’ll set the record straight on this bad business practice after the jump…
* * *
So, can a prevailing defendant really recover e-discovery costs?
Remember when I told you that a prevailing defendant could recover all electronic discovery costs? I lied.
Oh, let off some steam and stick around. Allow me to explain. Actually, I’ll let Phil Miles at Lawffice Space explain:
Last Friday, the Third Circuit released a definitive opinion regarding taxation of e-discovery costs against losing litigants…Judge Vanaskie (who I’ll note is pretty hip to technology issues) largely vacated an order awarding $360,000 in e-discovery costs to the defendant, slashing it by more than 90%.
Court allows plaintiff a quick peek into defendant’s Facebook account
A state court judge in Pennsylvania has come up with a new way to afford litigants access to social media as part of discovery in a pending civil action. Daniel Cummins at Tort Talk has the details:
The Judge’s page long Order does not provide the background on the case leading up to this Motion and Order, or why such discovery was pursued by the Plaintiff.
While the Court did grant the Plaintiff access to the Defendant’s Facebook page and ordered the Defendant not to delete any info from the Facebook profile, the Defendant was granted permission to change his login name and password after seven (7) days following his compliance with the Court’s Order.
#SCOTUS clarifies scope of FMLA coverage for employers
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court in Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md. held that state employees have no cause of action under the self-care provision (last bullet point in the hyperlink) of the Family and Medical Leave Act. In plain English, if you work for a State employer, and you need time off work for a serious health condition that leaves you unable to perform the essential functions of your job, the FMLA does not require that your employer give you any time off.
Yesterday’s SCOTUS opinion does not affect the FMLA rights of two classes of eligible employees:
- Employees of public agencies; and,
Distinguishing state & federal disability-accommodation claims
Let’s say you operate a business in NJ. Your disabled employee comes to you requesting an accommodation for his disability. Does the mere failure to provide that accommodation trigger a claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)? What about under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
I have two recent cases and two different answers — depending on whether you are in state or federal court, plus some general accomodation tips for employers after the jump…
* * *
4 new employment-law bills now pending in Congress
Below are summaries of four pieces of legislation of which employers should take note:
- Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. Senator Tom Harkin (IA-D) introduced this bill last week. It would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and lower the burden of proof for employees to prove age discrimination claims.
- National Right to Work Act. Senator Jim DeMint (SC-R) has introduced this bill to “preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.”
Baseball has a new social media policy. And it may be unlawful.
I’ll tell you why, after the jump…
Arbitration agreement tips for PA employers from the 3rd Circuit
Early in my legal career, a colleague taught me the expression: pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered. Essentially, be agressive. But push too hard, and you may lose it all.
Some PA companies require their new hires to sign an agreement requiring them to arbitrate any claims that arise out of the employment relationship. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that agreements requiring employees to arbitrate employment-related claims are ok. However, in Pennsylvania (as in other states), when those agreements are too one-sided, courts deem them unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable.
So remember, pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered. And thanks to a decision the Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed down yesterday, PA employers now have a better blueprint as to how to avoid unconscionable arbitration agreements. Details after the jump…
* * *
Score! PA Senator pushing to legalize March Madness at work.
Will office pools be legal in Pennsylvania this year? One State Senator is trying to make it so.
Jealous, New Mexico? Yeah, you’re jealous.
Details after the jump…