Employee sues employer. Employer calls employer’s lawyer. Employer and lawyer discuss the case. They review the cast of characters. They talk about the chronology of events. They assess the potential exposure to employer.

And, as sure as eggs, employer asks lawyer the following question: “Can’t we sue him?”

And what, do you presume, employer proposes to sue employee for exactly? Oh, there are many options, of course. But the classic is a claim for defamation. Employer wants to sue employee for alleging that employer engaged in unlawful discrimination or harassment or retaliation, etc., etc. Ok, truthfully, employer doesn’t care much about what exactly the suit would be for–just whether employer can sue the bejesus out of employee.

Last week, I posted about the decision of an ALJ finding that Quicken Loans’ confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions contained in its employment contracts violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Before the new year, though, the NLRB gave us some indication about its position with respect to confidentiality in the workplace. In short, it is not a fan.

box of chocolates.jpgOn December 28, 2012, the NLRB announced its decision in American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens. In that decision, the Board overruled a decision from 1978, which established a categorical exemption for witness statements made during a workplace investigation. Under that long-standing precedent, an employer did not have to provide such witness statements to the union representing an employee concerning discipline.

Well, not anymore. Under the new decision, which found that the bright-line rule established in Anheuser-Busch, Inc., should be replaced by a balancing test. The Board found that the NLRA imposes on an employer a “general obligation” to furnish a union with relevent information necessary to perform its duties. Under the new balancing test, the employer will have to determine whether it has “any legitimate and substantial confidentiality interests.”

Just when you think the NLRA has been expanded as far as it can possibly go, POP!! Along comes a decision yet again expanding the reach of the NLRA and limiting the ability of employers to manage their workforces. The latest such expansion comes from an Administrative Law Judge in an unfair labor practice charge filed against

The Delaware Supreme Court started the New Year with a resolution of sorts for lawyers. In a decision issued on January 2, 2013, the Court instructed that, if counsel agrees to alter a deadline in the trial court’s scheduling order, all remaining deadlines will be rendered inapplicable:

Henceforth, parties who ignore or extend scheduling deadlines without promptly consulting the trial court will do so at their own risk. In other words, any party that grants an informal extension to opposing counsel will be precluded from seeking relief from the court with respect to any deadlines in the scheduling order.

The Court also stressed the priority of avoiding any changes that would affect the trial date:

Delaware’s Court of Chancery is the North Star of the noncompete-litigation universe in the State and, in many respects, in jursidctions around the country. It can also be a tricky galaxy to traverse due to the speed of litigation, the equitable principles that control procedural rules and, on an even more basic level, the fact that many of the court’s opinions are not reported. As a result, transcripts of rulings from the bench are commonly cited as binding authority.

But today’s post is not about a transcript ruling but about a letter decision, issued by Vice Chancellor Glasscock on October 12, 2012, in NuVasive v. Lanx, Inc., No. 7266-VCG (PDF). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had “lured away a number of [its] employees to work for [the defendant], in breach of various duties owed to NuVasive by these employees.”

The opinion was issued on the plaintiff’s motion to compel the defendant to provide the identities of all of the plaintiff’s employees, past and current, with whom the defendant had communicated in the past year about possible employment.

I took a week off of blogging last week in a largely unsuccessful attempt at vacation. Although my vacation plans did not turn out quite as I’d expected, I did manage to tear myself away from the computer, my smartphone, Twitter, and the Internet as a whole for three entire days. For me, this is no small feat.

The draws of the digital world are many. For me, the strongest pull is the thought of a client trying to reach me. I’m in the service business, after all. So it’s my business to make sure my clients are getting the services they need, when they need it.

My three-day reprieve was a reasonable success. I was able to see a few sights, take a few good pictures, and even managed to make some time for a little retail therapy. And, despite my digital absence, no client suffered as a result.

Michigan is the latest State to pass a “Facebook-privacy” law. The law, called the Internet Privacy Protection Act, was signed by Gov. Rick Snyder last Friday. The law prohibits employers and educational institutions from asking applicants, employees, and students for information about the individual’s social-media accounts, reports The Detroit News.

The Michigan law contains four important exceptions. Specifically, the law does not apply when:

1. An employee “transfers” (i.e., steals) the employer’s “proprietary or confidential information or financial data” to the employee’s personal Internet account;

The EEOC has enjoyed several victories in recent months. For example, the EEOC was granted summary judgment in a hostile-environment claim filed on behalf of a class of black construction workers. Even more recently, the EEOC was awarded summary judgment in an age-discrimination lawsuit against the City of Baltimore. But things haven’t been all peaches and cream for the EEOC.

In EEOC v. McPherson Cos., Inc., a federal district court in Alabama granted summary judgment to the defendant-employer in a sexual-harassment lawsuit brought by the EEOC on behalf of an unnamed male employee. The employee worked in a warehouse with an all-male workforce.

The EEOC alleged that, after being subject to a constant barrage of “ugly talk,” the employee complained to his supervisor about the allegedly hostile work environment. About a year later, the employee confronted his co-workers, who apologized and, thereafter, stopped directing rude comments his way. About a year after that, the employee complained to HR, which investigated the complaint, resulting in discipline for several workers and two supervisors. After this last complaint, the comments ceased.

I’ve posted more than my share of stories involving allegations by employees that they were terminated because they were “too sexy” for the job. For example, there was the female banker who sued Citigroup, alleging that she was terminated for being “too sexy for her job.” Then there was the data-entry employee who was terminated from her job in a lingerie warehouse for, she alleged, wearing what her employer considered to be clothing that was “too sexy.”

Usually, this type of allegation involves at least some level of grandiose delusion and almost always involves the employee’s belief that everyone hates her for being so darn good looking. But today’s post goes much closer to the realm of the legitimate. Because this post involves an actual court decision. On December 21, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there was no unlawful discrimination where a dentist terminated his dental assistant of 10 years after his wife became jealous.

For his part, the dentist admitted that the assistant was a good employee and wasn’t fired for poor performance. Instead, he claimed that her tight clothing was too distracting and felt that he wouldn’t be able to resist her charms if she remained in his employ any longer, reports CNN.

Wage-and-hour lawsuits continue to plague employers around the country. Off-the-clock claims are some of the most difficult to defend because, by definition, the employee did not record the time in dispute. Trying to disprove an allegation is about as easy as boxing shadows.

Employers who face these off-the-clock claims are understandably frustrated by the ability of an employee to bring a lawsuit based on the employee’s failure to comply with workplace rules. A recent trend has been the application of an affirmative defense similar to the one used in harassment cases. This defense is a very positive development for employers.

A recent decision by the 10th Circuit applied a similar reasoning with a similarly positive result. In Brown v. ScriptPro, LLC, the plaintiff-employee claimed that he’d worked from home during a 4-month period so he could take time off before the birth of his child. Despite the company’s policy that required employees to record and submit time worked, the plaintiff claimed that he did not report the time. After he was fired for performance issues a few months later, he filed suit

Contact Information