Legal Articles, Employment
Investigatory Meeting Even With Possible Consequences Not an Adverse Employment Action
Employees sometimes find themselves summoned to an internal investigation and informed that they could be terminated depending upon the results of the investigation. As long as the employer is merely (and reasonably) enforcing its preexisting disciplinary policies, such circumstances (however unsettling) do not support even a prima facie case of employment discrimination.
Court Amends Time Restriction for Engineering Firm Non-Compete Agreement
Maintenance Technologies International, LLC v. Vega, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 136
Breach and Irreparable Harm Required for Enforcement of Non-Compete Agreement
Opticare, P.C. v. Zimmerman, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 759
To Be Qualified for a Position, an Employee Must Also Be Eligible
Most employees are familiar with the proposition that for them to prevail in a discrimination case they must prove several things, including that they were “qualified” for the position sought (and denied). Most people equate being “qualified” with “possessing the qualifications to perform the job” and this is correct. But there is more. In addition to being technically competent, the employee must also be eligible to apply for the position.
Employee Handbook Alert: Seemingly Neutral Work Rule May Violate NLRA
The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) gives private-sector employees the unqualified right to engage in “protected concerted activity” which includes discussing among themselves such things as wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. An employer cannot promulgate a work rule that tends reasonably to chill employees’ exercise of that statutory right.
Karl Knauz Motors, Inc. owned and operated a BMW dealership. Its employee handbook contained the following (apparently common sense) rule:
(b) Courtesy: Courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. Everyone is expected to be courteous, polite, and friendly to our customers, vendors and suppliers, as well as to their fellow employees. No one should be disrespectful or use profanity or any other language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.
Court Denies Enforcement Due to Inconsistencies & Absence of Valid Contract
Luongo Construction & Development, LLC v. Keim, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1182
Preemptive Effect of LMRA Extends to Suits Alleging Liability in Tort
Preemptive Effect of LMRA Extends to Suits Alleging Liability in Tort
Court Invalidates Non-Compete Agreement for Excessive Restraint of Trade
CT Cellar Doors, LLC v. Palamar, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3247
Firing to Prevent Pension Vesting, Without More, Does Not Violate ADEA
In this economy, companies are terminating employees in an effort to increase share value or simply improve the bottom line. Often it is the older, more senior, and more costly employees that are the first to go. The question sometimes arises: “Can my employer fire me to prevent my pension from vesting (thereby saving itself money) without violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act?” The short and surprising answer is “yes,” assuming the absence of other critical allegations necessary to sustain an ADEA claim.
Court Grants Motion for Transfer to California District Court in Non-Compete Agreement Dispute
United Rentals, Inc. v. Pruett, 296 F. Supp.2d 220
