In a case of first impression for the appellate courts of this Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently ruled in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc. that language contained in an employment agreement entered into after commencement of employment, which indicated the parties’ “intent to be legally bound” was insufficient consideration to support a non-compete agreement.
Continue Reading Employers Must Provide “Valuable Consideration” To Current Employees When Entering A Non-Compete Agreement During Employment
U.S. Supreme Court Widens the Scope of Retaliation Claims under Title VII
This post was contributed by Anthony D. Dick, Esq., an Associate and a member of McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Practice Group in Columbus, Ohio.
The number of retaliation-based charges of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC") has doubled from approximately 18,000 to 36,000 in the last
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Opinion Allowing African-American Firefighters To Sue City Of Chicago Asserting Racial Discrimination Disparate Impact Claims
This post was contributed by Bruce D. Bagley, Esq., a Member in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.
It’s not often that all nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court agree on the disposition of an employment law matter, but that’s what happened in Lewis v. City of Chicago, issued
Supreme Court Age Discrimination Decision in “Mixed-Motive” Cases Invites Legislative Reversal
The United States Supreme Court decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. creates a rift between the treatment of so called "mixed-motive" cases under the ADEA and Title VII. Under Title VII, an employee may allege that he suffered an adverse employment action because of both permissible and impermissible considerations—i.e., a “mixed-motives” case. If a Title
President Obama selects Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court Nominee
Judge Sotomayor’s resume is summarized by CNN and her most notable opinions are compiled by the New York Times. Judge Sotomayor’s most significant employment-related decision came in Ricci v. DeStefano which is now before the United States Supreme Court. Ricci is a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a
Title VII’s Antiretaliation Protections can extend to an Employee’s Involvement as a Witness in an Employer’s Internal Investigation
In its decision in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson City, the United States Supreme Court considered the scope of Title VII protections from retaliation for employees who act as witnesses in an employer’s internal investigation into harassment. The Court held that an employee’s involvement in the employer’s internal investigation constituted opposition to unlawful employment practices when she responded to her employer’s questions in a manner disapproving of accused harasser’s sexually obnoxious behavior toward her. The Court’s decision unfortunately does not create a bright line standard for employers defining the scope of an employee’s involvement in an internal investigation which can trigger protections from retaliation. Employers should tread very carefully in this area.Continue Reading Title VII’s Antiretaliation Protections can extend to an Employee’s Involvement as a Witness in an Employer’s Internal Investigation