Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Did the NLRB do more harm than good by permitting teaching and research assistants to organize?
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Tuesday, August 30, 2016
What employers can learn from EEOC's new Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation
Yesterday, the EEOC published its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. It’s the agency’s first formal guidance on this issue since 1998, and was long overdue. After all, according to EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, “Retaliation is asserted in nearly 45 percent of all charges we receive and is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination.” She adds, “The examples and promising practices included in the guidance are aimed at assisting all employers reduce the likelihood of retaliation.”
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Monday, August 29, 2016
An anniversary love story
Thirteen years ago today I married my best friend. I’m happy to report that the thunderstorms that rocked Cleveland on August 29, 2003, were not of the foreshadowing kind. It hasn’t been perfect. No marriage is. But every day is better because I get to experience it holding Colleen’s hand. And that makes us very, very lucky.
So, I thought I’d re-run a post from four years ago today. Enjoy.
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Friday, August 26, 2016
WIRTW #427 (the “treat me like your mother” edition)
Someday I am going to convert this legal blog into a full-time dad/music blog. Until then, you get my semi-regular kids/musical posts. Like today’s.
Here’s what I read this week:
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
OSHA's new Whistleblower Investigations Manual creates a huge burden for employers
![]() |
| Image via Lifehack.org http://goo.gl/sn/VO1H |
For most of those OSHA-enforced anti-retaliation statutes, OSHA has made employers’ anti-retaliation compliance a whole lot more difficult.
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
A wage/hour primer for employers with tipped employees
Employment Law 360 is reporting that a waitress is suing Walt Disney World for improperly taking a “tip credit” and paying her less than the minimum wage even though she spent significant time performing non-tipped work.
That story got me thinking that in the nine-plus years of this blog, I’ve never discussed how the FLSA impacts tipped employees. If you employ tipped workers, today is your lucky day.
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.
Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Did the 7th Circuit finally kill McDonnell Douglas?
If you are an employment lawyer, the words “McDonnell Douglas” will bring a sentimental tear to your eye.
For the unfamiliar, the McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary framework used in discrimination cases, which lack direct evidence of discrimination, to determine whether an employee’s claim should survive summary judgment and proceed to trial. It first asks whether the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination—(i) s/he belongs to a protected class; (ii) s/he was qualified for the position; (iii) though qualified, s/he suffered some adverse action; and (iv) the employer treated similarly situated people outside of his/her protected class differently. If the plaintiff satisfies this minimal showing, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action. Once the employer makes this articulation, the burden shifts again, back to the plaintiff to show that the employer’s reason is a pretext for discrimination.
For more information, contact Jon at (440) 695-8044 or JHyman@Wickenslaw.com.
Do you like what you read? Receive updates two different ways:
Subscribe to the feed or register for free email updates.


