Employee NDAs Need Recalibration Under Illinois LawBy Paul StarkmanLabor and Employment Law, March 2020The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act will affect Illinois employers’ use of workplace confidentiality, nondisparagement, noncooperation, and arbitration provisions.
Employers Must Use New I-9 Employment Verification FormsBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, March 2020As of Jan. 31, employers should begin using Form I-9 with revision date of October 21, 2019, to comply with their employment eligibility verification responsibilities.
Can Illinois Limit Mandatory Arbitration Provisions?By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2019The Illinois Workplace Transparency Act goes into effect on January 1. Among other things, it purports to put a number of limits on mandatory arbitration agreements imposed by employers.
Did the Parties Agree to Arbitrate Their Disputes?By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, October 2019A recent federal appellate case serves as a reminder that it is best practice to provide a written copy of an arbitration agreement and have individuals sign an acknowledgment of receipt and review of the arbitration provision.
Preventing Violence in the Illinois WorkplaceBy Daniel S. AlcornLabor and Employment Law, October 2019An overview of an employer's duty to provide a safe workplace in Illinois and practical steps that can be taken to prevent workplace violence.
Inevitable Disclosure No Substitute for Post-Employment Non-Competition ProvisionBy Michael F. BraunIntellectual Property, September 2019Archer Daniels Midland Company v. Sinele, et al. reminds employers that the doctrine of inevitable discovery is not a foolproof substitute for enforceable post-employment restrictions on competition.
Employee not entitled to new bossBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2019A summary of Tinsley v. Caterpillar Financial Services, Corp.
For ADA protection, obesity must have physiological basisBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2019Many Americans are overweight or even obese. When does this create a condition protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
How to handle the pot-smoking Illinois employeeBy Daniel S. AlcornLabor and Employment Law, July 2019Effective January 1, 2020, the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act will allow Illinois residents over 21 years of age to legally possess certain amounts of marijuana, which means Illinois employers will begin to have workers who lawfully have traces of marijuana in their system.
Likely new Illinois statutesBy Jennie E. ChristensenLabor and Employment Law, July 2019The Illinois General Assembly recently passed a number of bills that, if signed by Governor Pritzker, would impose significant new duties upon Illinois employers.
Inevitable disclosure no substitute for post-employment non-competition provisionBy Michael F. BraunLabor and Employment Law, May 2019Archer Daniels Midland Company v. Sinele, et al. reminds employers that the doctrine of inevitable discovery is not a foolproof substitute for enforceable post-employment restrictions on competition.
Janus v. AFSME Council 31: The aftermathBy Carl R. DraperLocal Government Law, February 2019The Supreme Court held in Janus v. AFSME Council 31 that the mandatory collection of agency fees is a violation of the First Amendment rights of public employees who do not wish to belong to a union.
RIFs are not the easy solution for problem employeesBy Fiona OngLabor and Employment Law, February 2019Hawks v. Ballantine Communications, Inc. highlights the risks companies take when culling unwanted employees through a supposed reduction in force.
Social security no match letters to resume in 2019By Benjamin T. KurtenLabor and Employment Law, February 2019Common questions and answers about no-match letters, which are sent by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to employers that have submitted a wage report containing a reported name, Social Security number, or a combination for an employee that do not match SSA records.
Janus v. AFSME Council 31: The aftermathBy Carl R. DraperLabor and Employment Law, January 2019The Supreme Court held in Janus v. AFSME Council 31 that the mandatory collection of agency fees is a violation of the First Amendment rights of public employees who do not wish to belong to a union.
Lawsuit alleges “no-poach” agreement is antitrust violationBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, January 2019Employers would be wise to consider abandoning no-poach agreements, particularly since antitrust damages can be very significant.
Tax considerations when settling an employment claimBy Alan ShamounLabor and Employment Law, January 2019There are a number of issues to consider before writing up a settlement agreement and making sure all parties involved know what their obligations are for reporting and paying the proper amount of taxes.