Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I spent a lot of hours on the road this week for work, so this will be a bit briefer of a "What I've Been Reading This Week" than I would prefer.  Although I had limited time to read articles this week (not to mention with other news dominating the headlines this week...), the article by Anne Yuengert on ways employers can attempt to minimize potential sexual harassment claims was one of the more relevant and practical articles I have read within the past week or two.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


A Brief Primer on Sexual Harassment Claims & How To Minimize Exposure

Let me preface this with a word of caution:  When I say this article provides a guide on how to minimize exposure for sexual harassment claims, I am not saying this is a secret book of how to sexually harass co-workers or subordinates and get away with it.  Instead, Anne Yuengert's article gives readers a brief overview of what constitutes sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and applies the law to a common workplace scenario (dinner between a supervisor and subordinate) to illustrate how a sexual harassment claim could arise.  This one is well worth a read...including some guidelines on what can be done to minimize potential liability.


An EEOC Charge Has Been Filed Against Your Company...What to Do, What to Do

Alyssa Peters wrote a great article a few weeks ago on an issue that faces many employers:  An EEOC charge is filed against the company.  What now?  In her article, Alyssa offers five steps an employer can take once being notified of the charge.  Perhaps the most important suggestion she makes is to not ignore the charge.  As the saying goes, ignoring it can only lead to bad things happening.  While this article might not be applicable to all employers, it is worth a read even for those who are curious what all happens when an EEOC charge is filed.


U.S. District Court Provides Guidance on the Scope of Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act

A few months ago, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia handed down a ruling in which it clarified just how far a court could go to "modify" a non-compete agreement in the state.  The case, LifeBrite Laboratories, LLC v. Cooksey, centered around a dispute over a non-compete agreement that did not include any geographic restriction.  Under Georgia law, a non-compete in the state will generally be enforced so long as it is reasonable in time, geographic area, and scope of prohibited activities.  Georgia's Restrictive Covenants Act ("Act") allows a court to "modify a covenant [non-compete agreement] that is otherwise void and unenforceable so long as the modification does not render the covenant more restrictive than as originally drafted by the parties."  As Lauren Gordon writes, this court held that the term "modify" in the Act, as interpreted as a matter of first impression in this case, allows a court to strike unreasonable restrictions but not reform or rewrite non-competes by supplying new terms.  It will be interesting to see how other courts in the state interpret this portion of the Act going forward.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more