State legislators across the country have introduced a spate of bills intended to crack down on businesses that move call center operations out of state. Several states adopted such laws, including New York and New Jersey, where new laws take effect soon.
Following the lead of other courts around the country, a Pennsylvania state court has held that employees can bring lawsuits against their employers asserting claims under the state’s medical marijuana law.
A recent family law decision proves significant beyond the family law context, including in the employment law context. The decision in Yenovkian v. Gulian marks the first time the privacy tort of false light publicity has been recognized in Canada.
Oregon’s active 2019 legislative session has prompted the need for several policy and handbook updates for employers doing business in Oregon. This Insight provides an overview of the most notable recent employment law developments in Oregon.
With the start of a new year—and a new decade—employers in San Francisco, California, Waterloo, Iowa, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, must follow new “ban-the-box” laws restricting their use of criminal records in hiring and personnel decisions.
On February 6, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Philadelphia’s salary history ordinance and reversed the lower court's decision, which had held that one of the ordinance’s provisions was unconstitutional.
On January 31, 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published a new edition of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, approved by the Office of Management and Budget on October 21, 2019.
The City of St. Louis, Missouri enacted a ban-the-box ordinance prohibiting employers within the city from basing promotions or hiring decisions on an individual’s criminal history or a related sentence. The ordinance will take effect January 1, 2021.
On December 13, 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court provided clarity on the issue of giving references for former employees. This article discusses points to consider when requesting and providing references, given the developing case law.
A recent decision suggests that adjudicators will consider it justifiable when an employer fires an employee whose absences are more frequent than permitted under a reasonable Absenteeism Policy, even if the absences involve a respectable activity.
