Featured on Employment Law This Week – An Illinois appellate court weighs in on social media and solicitation. The case involved a defendant who sent LinkedIn connection requests to three former coworkers, even though he had signed a non-solicit agreement. In considering whether social media activity violates non-solicitation agreements, other courts have drawn a distinction between passive social media activity and more active, direct activity. Though these requests were made directly to the former coworkers, the court in this case ruled that the content constituted passive activity because the defendant did not discuss his new job in any way, nor did he directly attempt to recruit his former coworkers. The court concluded that sending the connection requests did not violate the prohibition against inducing co-employees. Brian Spang, from Epstein Becker Green, has more:
Monthly Archives: July 2017
Under the amendments, the pre-trial procedure extends only to the monetary disputes. The amendments (art. 1252 of the Russian Civil Code) also directly prescribe that the pre-trial procedure doesn`t apply to nonpecuniary claims for infringement of IP rights (for example, suppression of acts that infringe or endanger the IP rights; seizure and destruction of counterfeit goods; official publication of the court decision rendered against an infringer).
In a very thorough analysis following a 3 day Preliminary Injunction hearing Judge Jed Rakoff declined to issue injunctive relief to a former employer seeking to enjoin four former employees and their new employer from competing or from soliciting clients or employees. The decision is far ranging in the employee movement context touching upon inadvertent retention of confidential information, the propriety of new employers providing broad indemnifications and large signing bonuses to the recruits, and the scope of allowable “preparatory conduct” in a one year non-compete period, among other issues presented in the context of a group of employees in the eDiscovery services space collectively on the move.
Law360, New York (July 18, 2017, 9:21 PM EDT) — Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Monday that employers can be held liable for disability discrimination if they fire an individual for using legally prescribed marijuana, an interpretation attorneys say could spread to other states and force employers to consider making exceptions to drug-free policies to accommodate workers’ medical needs.
“Change or die.”
How many times have you heard that over the last eight years?
A friend of mine in the legal industry pointed that out to me recently, along with commenting that it always sounds so dire. And it does sound dire.
Handicapped Employees Can Use Medical Marijuana Off-Site Under Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law
On July 17, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) determined that Massachusetts law permits the off-site use of medical marijuana by handicapped employees, provided that this accommodation does not unduly burden the employer. THE FACTS Cristina Barbuto, the plaintiff, was hired by the defendant company, pending successfully passing a drug test mandated by company policy. The company fired Barbuto after she failed the company’s mandatory drug test due to the presence of marijuana. Barbuto explained that she used medical marijuana off-site at night to treat symptoms associated with Crohn’s Disease, to no avail.
It’s hard to believe we’re halfway through July already! I start two weeks of holiday today, but before I do, here is the latest in your top posts from ILNToday! We have quite an impressive roundup this week from around the world:
By Herbert Z. Pinchuk, head of the Business Law Group at RSS.
July 14, 2017 — An overview of the wide variety of deals and cases that RSS handles each and every day. From helping startups and assisting individuals to working along major corporations, we provide the complete scope of legal services.
House Committee Seeks to Force the NLRB to Jettison “Indirect Control” Standard in Determining Joint Employer Status
Since the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186, in which it adopted a new, far less stringent test for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), employers have been left wondering whether they may be held to be a joint employer of temporary or contract workers that they retain through staffing and temporary agencies.