Employment discrimination laws do not protect an employee who is part of a racial minority from adverse employment action. The law protects her from having an adverse employment action against her because of a racial animus or an adverse employment decision being made that, while not based upon racial animus, still has a disparate impact on her because of her…
As discussed in detail in last week’s Telegraph article (click here to access), the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California on cell phone privacy provides a clear indication that the highest court of this nation deems cell phone privacy worthy of substantial legal protection. Basically, the Court held that police generally may not, without a search warrant,…
On April 18, 2014, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears appeals for both New Hampshire and Massachusetts Federal Cases, noted in the case of Eric Newman and Nestor Patague v. Advanced Technology Innovation Corp. that the regular hourly rate for purposes of calculating time and a half overtime pay is not merely what the employer considers the regular…
If a worker is fired as a result of being maligned by a jilted co-worker intent on revenge, it is possible the employer may be liable for sexual discrimination under federal law. On May 23, 2014, the Federal First Circuit Court of Appeals found that an employer may be held liable under federal discrimination law Title VII if the worker,…
The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) enforces the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) which, while dealing with a variety of union issues, also addresses non-union shops in the private sector and specifically protects the rights of most private sector employees to join together with or without a union to improve their wages and working conditions. The decision by the NLRB…
New Hampshire has long recognized that employment non-compete agreements are narrowly construed to protect only the legitimate business interests of the employer. If an employer seeks to enforce one of these agreements, the court has the power, if it finds that the agreement is overreaching, to not enforce any of it or if it finds that it needs to be…
Federal and state employment discrimination laws do not require employers to be fair and reasonable in determining when to fire an employee; they require that the employer not discriminate against the employees based upon a protected class. This point was illustrated in the First Circuit Court of Appeals April 29, 2014 decision of Robert Adamson v. Walgreens Co. In that…
A recent Federal Court decision emphasizes the importance of providing for the payment of expenses by some means to employees or independent contractors whom may later be determined by a court or governmental agency to legally be employees. In the March 19 decision of Robert Gennell, Jr. v. FedEx Corp., the New Hampshire federal trial judge addressed the drivers’ reimbursement…
If an employee in New Hampshire quits his job, is fired, or is laid off and that employee takes confidential and proprietary information from that employer to use in the future, the employer may very well decide to take legal action against the employee. Even if the employee has not signed a non-competition or non-solicitation agreement which prohibits him from…
A recent settlement occurred in which Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe agreed to pay $324,000,000 to employees based on claims that the companies conspired to suppress salaries by not hiring each others’ workers. See the Bloomberg Business Week article here. This settlement provides those who are defending their former employer’s attempt to enforce a non-compete through an injunction an additional…