Last March, I wrote about a lawsuit the EEOC filed against a department store that allegedly refused to hire a woman because she was pregnant.  In the post “Thoughtless Comments Make For Easy Pickings,” I noted some interesting accusations contained in the case — including that the pregnant woman claimed she was told that the hiring manager “had not had much luck hiring pregnant women” and that she should re-apply “after giving birth.”

Earlier this week, we discussed how when drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, few are likely to devote any significant attention to the provisions in the “Miscellaneous” section of the agreement, and how this is a significant mistake.  In particular, we discussed how forum selection clauses are extremely important when drafting restrictive covenant agreements.

In this post, we are considering Choice of Law and Arbitration provisions.

When drafting or reviewing a restrictive covenant, you are likely to spend a significant amount of time considering its specific purpose and scope.

Few, however, are likely to devote any significant attention to the remaining provisions in document, including the likely “Miscellaneous” portion that is almost always a part of the agreement.  This is a mistake.  There are numerous provisions contained in this section that can, in some circumstances, be outcome-determinative.  Below is a consideration of three such provisions and their importance to your agreement.

As part of President Obama’s “Open Government Initiative,” the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) has proposed a new rule that would require employers with more than 250 employees to publicly file their injury and illness logs on a quarterly basis. OSHA has also proposed that all employers in industries with high injury rates publicly file their injury and illness reports once a year.

On November 19, 2013, a trade association representing construction-related firms, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to block a final rule from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) that would require federal contractors to establish a seven-percent goal for the employment of workers with disabilities. 

On September 24, the OFCCP published the final rules revising the regulations implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 that had been announced in late August.  The final rules become effective March 24, 2014.  Employers should start planning…

In August, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released major revisions to the regulations on the laws requiring federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in affirmative action for disabled individuals and veterans. Our lawyers, Richard Gerakitis, Ashley Hager and Jim McCabe, recently presented a webinar on the latest revisions to these laws.  See the presentation below or click here for our advisory on the new regulations.

In a bold move by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which covers Georgia, Florida and Alabama), the Court has overruled the long-standing precedent of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”) that when a supervisor engages in safety-related misconduct, his or her “rogue conduct” is imputed to the employer.

The DOL recently announced that it is sponsoring a contest to develop a smartphone app that would allow customers to determine whether a certain business is compliant with federal labor laws.

OSHA, EEOC and other DOL-managed agencies often insist on a condition that resolutions of matters include a public notice on that agency’s website that denotes the agency’s prowess in securing a penalty or fine.  If the DOL insists on such a condition as a means to provide data for this smartphone application, employers should consider the impact of this future recurring data affecting its scorecard on the app with its customers, clients or vendors.

After reconsidering it’s previous ruling – discussed here – the all-male Iowa Supreme Court issued a new opinion and affirmed that a boss could lawfully fire an attractive employee in order to allay his wife’s fear about potential adultery.

In its initial ruling, the court said that Dr. Knight terminated…