02/19/2013 - A workplace policy that requires all employees who seek treatment for substance abuse to submit to random drug testing constitutes disability discrimination, according to a New Jersey appeals court. The tests could not be justified by business necessity or for safety reasons and were required of those employees with no history of poor performance.
02/19/2013 - The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that a company is liable for pretexting undertaken by a third party on the company’s behalf. The court ruled that the company must pay compensatory and punitive damages to the employee who was the target of the investigation.
02/19/2013 - A new report explores why terrorist groups die off and whether government intervention can help speed the process. The report also discusses how factors such as the age of the organization can affect its demise.
02/19/2013 - A federal district court upheld a provision of federal law that makes it illegal for consumer reporting agencies to disclose background check information that is more than seven years old.
02/19/2013 - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that a company violated federal law when it fired an employee for writing offensive and threatening remarks on newsletters in a staff break room.
12/19/2012 - Two cases involving the use of dogs to sniff out narcotics are before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the cases, the Court will determine the circumstances under which dogs outside a home can be used to detect drugs inside a private residence and what credentials are necessary to prove that a drug dog is properly trained.
12/19/2012 - An employee who was fired for using medical marijuana may not sue his employer, according to a federal appeals court. The court ruled that the state law in Michigan, which allows the use of medical marijuana, does not protect the employee from disciplinary action.
12/19/2012 - An appeals court ruled that healthcare customers who suffered identity theft may sue the company after laptops containing customer data were stolen. The company argued that the customers had no standing.