Various labor & employment blogs over the last week have been nearly hyperventilating over another complaint by a regional NLRB office challenging an employer’s practices as it relates to employee use of Facebook.

For anyone who has been tracking the NLRB’s actions, these filings really should come as no surprise anymore.

[caption id=”attachment_1581″ align=”alignright”

The news came late Monday: The NLRB’s case against an employer for allegedly firing an employee due to a Facebook post had settled.  The background of that case can be found in one of my November 2010 posts.  The case name is: American Medical Response of Connecticut, Inc., 34-CA-12576.

The terms of the settlement were not

UPDATED 2/7/11 – The case settled today. See this update.  

In an unprecedented case, the NLRB is pushing all in over the battle on social media. And its press release today leaves little doubt where it is placing its chips — strongly in the employee’s favor.

I had heard about this case a few weeks

For retaliation cases, an employee’s active participation in another person’s discrimination case has been viewed, in the past, as the threshold to be a "protected activity" under Title VII’s retaliation clause.  That has been watered down in the Second Circuit in recent years.  A new District Court decision today has concluded that simply expressing a

Do you like tricks or treats? Depending on your perspective, you’ll either find something to like or dislike about a decision just issued by the District Court of Connecticut. 

Judge Vanessa Bryant — who has been busy issuing decisions and posting them online seemingly every few days — granted a summary judgment motion by an