Uncategorized

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is facing heat from some 51 female managers that claim that the Dollar Store’s corporate headquarters created a system of compensation that caused female store managers to be paid less than males.  The plaintiffs allege that they are aware of no other criteria that could have caused such disparate impact, other than gender bias, subjectivity, and stereotyping.  The Dollar Store asked the U.S. District Court in North Carolina to dismiss the…

Many times, defamation lawsuits are filed based on suspicion that a former employer has disparaged the plaintiff because companies to which she has applied have not hired her.  While this may seem like a proper basis for legal action, a recent decision by the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed that it is not – the plaintiff must set forth “the exact words spoken or written” that constitute the alleged defamation. Without knowing what the employer

Over the past few years, the Virginia Supreme Court has evaluated the language contained in restrictive covenants, and clarified the types of non-compete clauses which create permissible restraints on trade under Virginia law.  Over the past few months, the Court has set out to clarify at which stage in the proceeding a trial court may determine the enforceability or unenforceability of such non-compete provisions.   For example, in the September 2013 decision of Assurance Data Inc.

An employee has a personal dispute in the workplace that leads to name-calling on social media and, ultimately, a physical confrontation. Is the company liable for any injuries sustained? Generally no, the employer will not be responsible for intentional acts resulting from personal workplace disputes except in limited instances.  An employer will be deemed responsible for employee conduct that occurs within the “scope of employment” (or within a small “detour” from that scope).  Intentional acts,