Contact Us
Categories
- SCOTUS
- Overtime
- Overtime Rule
- Federal Trade Commission
- FTC
- Service Animals
- Remote Work
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- Minors
- Work from Home
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- COVID-19
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Worker Misclassification
- FMLA Retaliation
- Non-exempt employees
- Wage and Hour
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employment Law
- HIPAA
- Independent Contractors
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Telecommuting
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- U.S. Supreme Court
- At-will employment
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Training
- Federal Department of Labor
- Government employees
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Payroll
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Litigation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Online Defamation
- OSHA
- Pension Plans
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Severance Pay
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Crisis Management
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Employee Contracts
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Hiring and Firing
- Internet & Media Law
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Showing 10 posts in Litigation.
“STOP”: Four Tips For Document Preservation When Facing Potential Litigation
In today’s digital environment, it is crucial that employers act fast when faced with a suit (or the threat of suit) by an employee or ex-employee. When potential litigation is on the horizon, the first step should always be to contact legal counsel. The next step should protecting documentation that might be relevant to the dispute. Keep in mind this acronym to make sure you are following that right steps for documentation preservation:
Search for employees that might possess information pertaining to the dispute. This might include supervisors, managers, or people who shared a workspace with the claimant, but it might also include others not under the direct supervision of the company, such as independent contractors or consultants that worked with the claimant.
Think about all sources of information – smart phones, tablets, cloud-based servers, thumb drives, work email accounts, etc. Once the sources are identified, consider whether you have and can maintain access to them. In some cases, it may require notifying the claimant that he must turn over password information or relinquish his work-issued devices, but it is highly suggested you contact legal counsel before proceeding with this step.
Order a litigation hold on relevant information. Instruct employees to not destruct, forward or edit the relevant documentation in any way. In-house destruction procedures (such as shredding or the automatic email deletion) should be cancelled until further notice from counsel. Litigation hold instructions should be made in writing and provide explicit instructions. The instructions should identify the type of materials and date ranges that are subject to the hold. A litigation hold should also identify to whom questions or concerns about the hold can be directed.
Present all information to counsel. He or she will then determine exactly what information needs to be preserved and for how long. Do not think that you, as an employer, know what information is important. By getting rid of documentation, even without ill intent, you may be hurting your ability to present a defense to the claims.
No employer likes facing employee-related litigation, but it is important to “STOP” and take time to ensure document preservation in the wake or threat of a suit.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees
The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks, [1]centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth. More >
Detecting FMLA Abuse
Dealing with employees who abuse FMLA can be difficult. Letting abuse run rampant, however, can impact business productivity and put a damper on company morale (as present employees often have to pick up the slack of someone on leave). Employers who detect abuse must proceed with caution because it is very easy to run afoul of regulations. More >
Foul on the Play: When Bullying in the Workplace Is Real
When Miami Dolphins player Jonathan Martin made allegations that veteran teammate Richie Incognito had bullied and hazed him so badly that he had no choice but to leave the team, the NFL was collectively stunned. Bullying in professional football? Can such a thing exist? More >
An Employer’s Duty Re: Jury Duty
Serving on a jury is one of the most important civic duties that a citizen can fulfill. For employers, however, having employees miss days or weeks at a time to sit on a jury can a mean a lag in productivity. If an essential employee is summoned for service it may be tempting for the employer to persuade him or her to find a way out of participating. As an attorney, I have often heard jurors attempt to skirt their duty by saying, “You Honor, I cannot miss work.” More >
Facebook Friends & Workplace Enemies
Inappropriate Facebook posts, pictures and the like have led to many firings in recent years. A large number of employees have become smarter on social media and made a concerted effort to not “friend” a manager or boss. They think that they are keeping their online persona and work reputation separate…but is that really possible when dealing with the Internet? More >
Fighting the Flu (and Liability) in the Workplace
As summer draws to an end, flu season is lurking right around the corner. Last year’s flu season was especially hard-hitting. Many employers have taken proactive steps in recent years to protect their workforce by offering free flu vaccines or encouraging employees to get one on their own. But, can employers go one step further and require their at-will employees to receive flu shots? More >
Who’s GINA and What Should I Know About Her?
GINA is not a who, but rather a what. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) was passed by Congress in 2008. GINA makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of genetic information. Employers cannot lawfully inquire about (1) an individual’s genetic tests; (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family members; or, (3) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of such an individual. More >
Complete Your Non-Compete: Helpful Drafting Tips
Perhaps you consider your non-compete agreement just one form in a stack of many? When it is time to use it there is not much to the process: you retrieve it from the HR office, briefly discuss it with the employee, and he willingly signs it. But such a practice is a perilous one because non-compete agreements are not meant to be “one-size-fits-all.” Rather, they should be thoughtfully tweaked to each specific employee and situation. By relying on boilerplate language and fill-in-the-blank forms, you are risking the chance that a court will find your agreement unenforceable. More >
Victories for Employers at the Supreme Court Level
The United States Supreme Court just issued two very important employment-related rulings and both of the decisions are big wins for employers. Today, let’s take a look at the first case: Vance v. Ball State University (decided June 24, 2013), which centered on employers’ liability for workplace harassment. More >

