Last May we reported that the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in a case of first impression, examined whether compliance with the Uniform Written Obligation Act (“UWOA”) can relieve an employer of its obligation to provide adequate consideration for non-competition agreement.   In Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, the employer argued that because the non-compete agreement

The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a decision that underscores the risk employers take when they assume that the law of the state where the employment agreement is signed will apply.  In Cunningham v. Feinberg, a copy of which can be found here, the Court of Appeals concluded that an employee is not precluded from

The law requires that the EEOC first attempt to informally settle cases with an employer before filing discrimination suit.  But what happens when the EEOC fails to negotiate or when it makes an unreasonable demand?  On Tuesday, in the case of Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, the Supreme Court heard argument on whether or not

The Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law provides that an employer that fails to pay wages owed to an employee (and the failure is not the result of a bona fide dispute) may be liable for “an amount not exceeding 3 times the wage, and reasonable counsel fees and other costs.” Lawyers for employees often

It has long been understood in Pennsylvania that in order for a restrictive covenant, such as a non-competition agreement, to be enforceable, it must be supported by “adequate consideration.” Courts have held then when the restrictive covenant is signed after the employment relationship as begun, such “adequate consideration” must be a benefit to which the

On April 3, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision that allows liability for Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) wage & hour violations to extend to successor entities when the entity that committed the violation is defunct.  In Thompson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network (a copy of which can be

It is well known that an employer can be held liable when a supervisor harasses an employee.  The more difficult question is who constitutes a “supervisor.”  Under the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Vance v. Ball State University, it must be established that the “supervisor” had the authority to hire and fire the harassment victim

Employers: hold on to those records!

Friday, 17 January 2014 by

From an employer’s perspective, defending wage & hour claims rarely is easy.  To successfully defend a wage & hour case without complete time sheets and payroll records is almost impossible.  Remember: employers bear the responsibility to maintain employee records for at least three years.  At a minimum, employers must maintain records confirming the days and

Arbitration agreements are becoming increasing common in the workplace.  The appeal of such agreements is obvious in that arbitration can help employers limit risk and expense associated with employment litigation.  Employers must be mindful, however, that merely having an arbitration provision in an employee manual does not necessarily mean that the provision is enforceable.  A

A civil suit filed last month in the U.S. District Court of Maryland by Kevin Buker, a former Battalion Chief with the Howard County Fire Department, seeks an answer to that question.  The former Battalion Chief contends that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was terminated after posting about gun control on his