Perhaps you're a female employee in an industry where companies pay full value for good workers, without regard to gender. That is of course only logical and how things should be in the American workplace, with no exceptions ever being made that harm women because they're … women.
Money, money, money.
In today's blog entry, we zero in on the above heading's reference to restrictive covenants from the comparatively narrow focus of so-called "noncompete agreements," which can occasionally comprise the central subject matter for a Connecticut court in a business litigation dispute.
Michael Trimble's disability is evident and well-established, but it seemingly had no connection with his ability to competently -- even admirably -- carry out his work-related duties at the Kroger supermarket chain's corporate offices in Portland, Oregon.
It's hard to imagine a bank -- candidly, any business in the United States, regardless of industry -- suffering through a tougher year than Wells Fargo did in 2016.
As an employee, you hope you're never faced with a dispute regarding your employer. Unfortunately, when it comes to wages and benefits you never know if something could go wrong. If this happens, you have every right to stand up for yourself.
Based upon any number of indicators, principals at the federal Transportation Security Administration have a fair amount of remedial work aimed at reputation restoration to do.
Here's a point that comes through with crystal clarity in a recent federal blog post authored in tandem by two U.S. Department of Labor administrators: some seriously high wattage will power the beam focused by federal regulators on any wage-based claim featuring allegations of employer retaliation.
So-called non-compete agreements have become something of a pariah in the business world in recent years, suffering from a barrage of complaints that tag them as repressive instruments that unfairly burden workers. One recent article penned by a U.S. Department of Labor attorney calls them "overbroad, blunt instruments" that are far too often used in lieu of other means of balancing the employer-employee relationship.
A proposed class of drivers appealed the lower court's decision requiring them to arbitrate their wage claims on an individual basis against the ride-hailing company, Uber Technologies Inc. ("Uber" or the "Company"). Specifically, U.S. District Court Judge James S. Moody Jr. rejected all three arguments made by the drivers, that: (1) the arbitration clause was unconscionable; (2) the provision requiring drivers to split the cost of arbitration was unlawful; and (3) the forum selection provision was unlawful. Coming before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the drivers have now argued that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") bars the arbitration clause in the user agreements.