Legal Articles, Employment
St. Louis Work Comp Lawyer
For over 30 years work comp lawyer James M. Hoffmann, has been helping St. Louis injured workers get the medical benefits and income they need to move forward.
U.S. Supreme Court Decides on Restrictive Interpretation of Required Causation for Title VII Employer Retaliation, Circumventing Congressional Amendment
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___ (2013)
Mediating a Sexual Harassment Claim
Statistically, the overwhelming majority of sexual harassment cases are resolved prior to trial by “alternate dispute resolution” in the form of mediation or arbitration. These proceedings (mediation in particular) are more informal than a courtroom trial, but you still need a zealous and experienced advocate on your side.
Do I Need an Attorney if I am Harassed at Work in Connecticut?
Do I Need an Attorney if I am Harassed at Work in Connecticut?
Can an Employer Require an Employee to Remain on Disability Leave Due to Pregnancy in Connecticut?
Can an Employer Require an Employee to Remain on Disability Leave Due to Pregnancy in Connecticut?
What Must an Employer Do to Accommodate an Employee or Job Applicant Who Has a Disability in Connecticut?
What Must an Employer Do to Accommodate an Employee or Job Applicant Who Has a Disability in Connecticut?
Hostile Work Environment vs. Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment
As an employment law attorney I can get too accustomed to the legal jargon. One question frequently asked by prospective clients is “what is the difference between hostile work environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment?” While both types of employment discrimination are illegal and actionable, they can take very different forms.
Mere Inclusion of a Restrictive Covenant Does Not Invalidate Entire Contract
Wes-Garde Components Group, Inc. v. Carling Technologies, Inc., 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 899
Court Enforces Non-Compete Agreements Connected to Franchise Agreements
Carvel Corporation v. DePaola, 2001 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1190
Enforcement of a Non-Compete
The trip-wire for the enforcement of a restrictive covenant is a breach by a former employee of contractual provisions contained in the agreement. An employer is entitled to relief if a former employee is engaging, or threatening to engage, in activities expressly prohibited by a non-compete agreement, that would cause harm to the employer. A former employee’s violation of a non-compete agreement constitutes a breach and “dictate[s] that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the agreement.”
An employer may also be entitled to relief where the former employee has not yet breached the agreement but is threatening to do so. Under these circumstances, the former employer may be entitled to injunctive relief from the court restraining any breach irrespective of the potential damage.