A recent family law decision proves significant beyond the family law context, including in the employment law context. The decision in Yenovkian v. Gulian marks the first time the privacy tort of false light publicity has been recognized in Canada.
Dutch employers are starting to abandon the use of fingerprints for time clocks and sales registers in light of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
Oregon’s active 2019 legislative session has prompted the need for several policy and handbook updates for employers doing business in Oregon. This Insight provides an overview of the most notable recent employment law developments in Oregon.
The Seventh Circuit recently became the second federal appellate court to address whether notice of an FLSA collective action may be sent to individuals who allegedly entered into mutual arbitration agreements waiving their right to join the action.
With the start of a new year—and a new decade—employers in San Francisco, California, Waterloo, Iowa, and Grand Rapids, Michigan, must follow new “ban-the-box” laws restricting their use of criminal records in hiring and personnel decisions.
The District of Minnesota recently joined several other federal courts around the country in holding that only workers with a connection to the forum state may join a collective action under the FLSA.
As the coronavirus situation continues to evolve, so do companies’ and governments’ approaches to monitoring and helping avoid the spread of the virus.
On February 10, 2020, a federal court approved the EEOC’s request to deem its retrospective collection of compensation data for calendar years 2017 and 2018 completed, ending (at least for now) the federal government’s first-ever collection of pay data.
On February 6, 2020, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Philadelphia’s salary history ordinance and reversed the lower court's decision, which had held that one of the ordinance’s provisions was unconstitutional.
At the end of 2019, courts in the UK decided that ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief under discrimination legislation. This decision begs the question: what do you actually need in order for a belief to be protected by UK equality laws?
