labor lawAdivision of labor law center

Nationwide employers should note that both federal and state courts in California will now throw out almost all noncompetition agreements. California has one of the most restrictive laws regarding noncompetition agreements. In fact, such agreements are almost always unenforceable in the state.

California law specifically requires that every individual shall retain the right to pursue any lawful employment opportunity.

Recently, Edwards v. Arthur Andersen upheld that principle. A tax manager for Arthur Anderson LLP in Los Angeles, Raymond Edwards signed a noncompete agreement in 1997.

The agreement specifically noted that  Edwards would not work directly for any of his Arthur Anderson clients, for 18 months after his separation from Arthur Anderson.

After the Enron debacle, Arthur Anderson closed its Los Angeles office and laid Edwards off. Another company offered Edwards a job, but only (more…)

Employers in Illinois need to be aware of a new ruling that holds them liable for the conduct of any supervisor towards any employee – especially in regards to sexual harassment.

The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer is responsible for sexual harassment by an employee who happens to be a supervisor, even if the employee is not in that supervisor’s chain of command.

In other words, it is sexual harassment when a supervisor or manager makes advances towards any employee, not just one who works for the supervisor.

This ruling makes it even more important than ever, that Illinois employers train supervisors and managers to prevent sexual harassment and a hostile work environment.

In Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, the judge ruled on April 16, 2009 that the employer was strictly liable for any manager’s or supervisor’s actions.

Sangamon County is primarily a rural area, about 200 miles southwest of Chicago.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal anti-discrimination law, an individual is not a “supervisor” in a case unless he or she has the authority to affect the victim’s employment status directly.

However, under the Illinois Human Rights Act, no such restriction applies. The employer is liable for the conduct of every supervisor in the organization, towards each and every employee in the organization.

In this case, a female records clerk with the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department filed a complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation against the department. She alleged that a sergeant within the department, who was not her supervisor, was harassing her.

On appeal, the judge ruled that the employer had established a hostile work environment.

Interestingly enough, initially the suit was against both the male supervisor and the employer. The male supervisor, however, was dismissed from the case after settling out of court. This left the employer alone liable for his behavior.

The judge ruled that the employer was “strictly liable” for harassment (more…)

In a rare ruling in support of employers, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals recently found that employers can discipline and even terminate an employee based on problems discovered while the employee is on unpaid leave under FMLA, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.  

The U.S. Department of Labor has long held that an employee on FMLA leave must be returned to his or her job, when the leave ends. However, the department has also repeatedly ruled that an employer can take any action against an employee, that the employer would have taken anyway, had the employee not be on FMLA leave. For example, the employer can terminate an employee for gross misconduct even if the employee happens to be on FMLA leave at the time the investigation is concluded.

In short, the employer cannot take any negative job action against an employee solely because the employee uses FMLA leave. However, simply taking FMLA leave does not make the employee immune from lay offs, or from being fired for just cause. This is true, even if the employer discovers the misconduct because the employee is on FMLA.

That decision was upheld in the case of Cracco v. Vitran Express, Inc. In this case, Kevin Cracco was a service center manager for Vitran Express, (more…)

Employers may need to implement new payroll procedures due to a recent 8^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on overtime.

In a Nebraska lawsuit against Famous Dave’s restaurant chain, the appeal court upheld the lower court ruling that the employer should have known that employees were working a more than one Famous Dave’s location.

The restaurant chain is based in Minnesota and has both franchise and company-owened locations throughout the Midwest.

The court found that most Omaha restaurants had policies prohibiting employees from working at more than one location. When an employee had permission to work at several locations, the employer had a system in place to combine the employees hours to calculate overtime.

However, Famous Dave’s  had no policy prohibiting employees from working at more than one location. A number of employees did work at two or more locations. Their hours were not combined to calculate overtime, (more…)