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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more