| Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace |
|
| Historically, employers, both public and private, were free to discriminate against employees or applicants because of their sexual orientation, which includes homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. It was not illegal to fire, refuse to hire, or to demote someone because he or she was a homosexual. Today, while sexual orientation is not afforded the same broad protection from discrimination as race, religion, or gender, it's protection from discrimination has been steadily increasing at the federal, state, and local levels. More... |
|
|
| Uniform Trade Secret Act Overview |
|
| Employers have always had some form of legal protection against former employees misappropriating their trade secrets. Because state common law, however, had evolved differently from state to state, it was uncertain what was protectable and what was not. Former employees could move to multiple states, and an employer's rights would vary from state to state. Once a trade secret was disclosed in one state, it was no longer a protectable trade secret in any state. More... |
|
|
| The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Temporary Staffing Firms--General Application |
|
| Background More... |
|
|
| Disparate Impact Claims under Title VII |
|
| Under Title VII it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee or applicant on the basis of basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. This means that employers may not fire, refuse to hire, demote, or take other adverse employment action against an employee or applicant because of his or her sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. More... |
|
|
| Privacy - Drug Testing - State Law Issues |
|
| The courts have had a difficult time determining which public employees may be tested randomly, within the confines of the United States Constitution, for drug use. As the subject continues to be clarified, it will create a "floor," or a standard below which states cannot go when dealing with similar issues of random drug testing in employment. Of course, the courts will still have the final say if they determine that state laws and constitutional provisions are more restrictive (afford more protection) than their federal counterparts. The courts may even prohibit the random testing of employees to whom the state laws and constitutional provisions apply. More... |
|
|