
FTC proposes rule that would ban employee noncompete clauses
The Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule Thursday that would ban U.S. employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers.
The Federal Trade Commission proposed a rule Thursday that would ban U.S. employers from imposing noncompete clauses on workers.
The Indiana House of Representatives and Indiana Senate did not violate the Title VII rights of a trio of former employees who accused former Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill of sexual harassment, a federal judge has ruled.
Organizations considering adverse employment actions for their H-1B foreign national employees should take into account required actions and related issues to avoid an H-1B violation
With Americans heading to the polls for midterm voting, U.S. immigration policy remains a polarizing and divisive topic.
Form I-9 violations lurk in almost every employer’s filing cabinet.
A federal judge has dismissed FedEx from a lawsuit filed by relatives of five of the eight people who were fatally shot last year at an Indianapolis warehouse by a former employee of the shipping giant.
Eli Lilly and Co. illegally deducted millions of dollars from employee paychecks to pay for company vehicles and extra time off, a former sales representative claims in a federal lawsuit.
Former Brownsburg music teacher John Kluge has joined a chorus of religious freedom advocates in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to use a Title VII employment case to overturn an “egregiously wrong” 45-year precedent that advocates claim prevents employees from obtaining accommodations for their religious practices.
In recent months, current and former employees of drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co., medical-equipment maker Roche Diagnostics and health care system Ascension St. Vincent have filed suit in federal district court, claiming their religious views and civil liberties were violated.
In recent years, there seems to be a growing litigation focus on employment discrimination against majority populations as protected classes.
While recent events have contributed to and exacerbated this problem, the presence of mental health issues in the workplace existed long before the beginning of a global pandemic. Despite that fact, employers still at times simply do not know how to confront and handle mental health issues.
In a tight labor market with diversity, equity and inclusion front of mind, some employers have expanded their outreach to prospective employees under the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC).
Employers likely remember Bostock v. Clayton County, the landmark decision where the Supreme Court of the United States extended Title VII’s “because of sex” protections to sexual orientation and transgender status. In that case, the Supreme Court made clear that it is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for employers to terminate employees for being gay or transgender but left open some questions.
The grant of summary judgment to Indiana Wesleyan University on a former employee’s retaliation and age discrimination claims has been upheld, but the issue of whether the employee’s termination was racially motivated has been remanded.
An Indiana University Kelley School of Business professor didn’t have his Title VII rights violated by his employer when the school didn’t provide him with an early promotion or when it paid one of his white colleagues more than him, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The Supreme Court says it won’t review the case of a Seattle-based Christian organization that was sued after declining to hire a bisexual lawyer who applied for a job. A lower court let the case go forward, and the high court said Monday it wouldn’t intervene.
Small business owners often wear multiple hats for their companies. In many cases, “Mike” the owner is often “Mike” the employee, with little distinction between those two roles. However, when a dispute arises and “Mike” is squeezed out of the company, how do courts distinguish between Mike’s rights as an owner versus Mike’s rights as an employee?
Previous versions of HEA 1001 provided that any worker could be granted a religious exemption to a vaccine mandate without employers inquiring into the validity of the employees’ claims. Had that version of the bill passed through the General Assembly and been signed by Holcomb, Indiana employers would have clear marching orders when it came to religious exemptions from vaccine mandates. But that provision was hotly contested and, ultimately, removed from the version of the bill that is now law in Indiana. So the question remains: What should Indiana employers do when they receive a request for religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate?
On March 3, President Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021, which will nullify forced arbitration clauses in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. Following the #MeToo movement, many states have enacted legislation to limit the scope of claims covered in employment arbitration agreements, but the act is the first federal limitation.
Since FMLA leave is a legal entitlement for the employee and a corresponding legal obligation for the employer, that abstract concept implicates immediate questions: Who is responsible for telling whom about a need for leave? What do they need to say? When?