The first one, Harris v. Quinn, dealt with whether non-union public employees could be forced to pay union dues. The court issued a relatively narrow holding, ruling that “partial” public employees could not be required to
For a special weekend post, this will be something a little different.
Earlier this month, I was “tagged” in another blog post in something called a “blog hop”. It’s basically a common-themed post that runs like a chain letter from blog to blog. The topic is on writing. (I’m grateful to Jennifer Romig on …
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision (with a heated split on the reasoning), ruled that the recess appointments to the NLRB made by President Obama during a three-day recess were invalid.
You can download the decision here.
Much of the early instant analysis has focused on the recess appointment power itself. But…
First off, let me say that I’m really
obsessed with enjoying this year’s World Cup.
But Thursday presents some special problems for employers. The United States Men’s Team has a very important game at 12 ET. Right in the middle of the lunch hour (or two?). Beat or tie Germany and the U.S. is through…
Let’s try something a little new today: I’ll give you some facts and see if you can pick the result that a court or agency found. (Hat tip to Overlawyered for highlighting some of these issues.) I’ll give you the lesson learned from these cases at the end.
Used Car Salesman Loses Temper
1. Nick is hired in late August 2008 as a used car salesman (really). On the first day on the job, Nick worked in a tent sale and inquired about the bathroom facilities. The manager responded that it was in the store. The next week, when he asked if he could use the bathroom during tent sales, the manager responded “you’re always on break buddy … you just wait for customers all day”. He told Nick that he could leave if he did not like the employer’s policies. During the next tent sale, he asked other salespeople about the compensation policy. He also raised the issue of bathroom breaks as well.
At another tent sale (apparently, tent sales are very popular), Nick asked his manager about the commissions for a vehicle and thought the employer was stealing money from him in calculating his commissions. He then went to the state’s wage & hour agency to obtain more information about commission-based payments.
By October 2008, his manager met with Nick in private office saying that he had no intention of firing Nick but that he was “talking a lot of negative stuff” and asking too many questions. The manager also said that if Nick did not trust the employer, he didn’t need to work there. Nick then lost his temper calling the manager a “f–ing mother f–ing”, a “f—ing crook” and an “a–hole.” Nick also told the manager he was “stupid” and stood up, pushed his chair aside and told the manager that if he was fired, the manager would regret it.
Nick is then fired and brings a claim against his employer.
Will Nick win his claim?
a) No, yelling at his boss is “obscene and denigrating” and thus grounds to fire the employee, even if he did engage in some “protected” activity.
b) No, while he made threats against his boss, they were empty words and he did not engage in “protected” actvity anyways because mere discussions regarding compensation are not covered.
c) Yes, because Nick’s outburst was not menacing, physically aggressive or belligerent and he engaged in “protected” activity.
d) Yes, because the right to use a bathroom is protected under state law and Nick was right to be upset that his use was restricted.
Much will be written about the new First Amendment free-speech-in-the-workplace case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today.
But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them say nearly the same thing — that testimony by an employee who has been subpoenaed outside the course of his…
At Monday’s Connecticut Legal Conference, CHRO Chair Gary Collins spoke for a bit about the developments at the oft-maligned agency since he’s come on board. (You can follow all the tweets from the conference on Twitter using #ctlegalconf as…
The Connecticut Legal Conference on Monday (produced by the Connecticut Bar Association) had several noteworthy programs, including a few on labor & employment law. In today’s post, I’m going to recap the presentation by David Lopez, the current EEOC General Counsel. He talked about the Top 10 Developments in EEOC Litigation over the last few…
Back in 2010, I did a post about how the World Cup would likely disrupt the workplace with everything from streaming videos to vacation time being used. I noted that even…
So, remember back in February where I noted that employers ought to “consider having an attorney review some of your [employment] agreements … [because sometimes,] poor drafting can sometimes be avoided by having an attorney involved”?