74
Legal Focus
JANUARY 2013
Employment and Labour Law USa
eBay Inc. was recently sued by U.S. Justice Department and the state of California for an allegedly illegal agreement with Intuit Inc., a technology company, to not employ former employees. The agreement was said to have instructed eBay’s recruiting staff to dismiss resumes from Intuit employees, which in turn, restricted competition for employees, limiting their access to better employment opportunities. This type of case simply highlights the many potential problems that lie within employment and labour law, and to explore this further, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Michael Grubbs, a labour and employment attorney at Denver-based law firm, Sherman & Howard.
can you briefly introduce yourself and your firm?
Established in 1892, Sherman & Howard is Denver, Colorado’s oldest law firm. The firm now has offices throughout the United States and employs approximately 190 lawyers who serve a broad range of clients, including privately held businesses, multi-national corporations and government entities. The firm’s labour and employment attorneys represent management in litigation involving all aspects of labour and employment law. Additionally, in order to limit lawsuits, we assist employers in crafting workplace policies, procedures and practices that facilitate productive employee relations and thus limit litigation. If litigation arises, we aggressively represent our clients, working with them to develop a solution that will both minimize costs and maximize the likelihood of success.
As a labour and employment attorney based in Sherman & Howard’s Phoenix, Arizona office, I also represent businesses in a broad range of labour and employment-related issues. My primary focus is getting to know my client’s business and culture so that any legal advice given is tailored to my client’s specific needs and conveyed in the way that is most helpful to my client. In addition to guiding clients through the complex issues that arise in labour and employment law, I spend time writing and speaking on legal topics. Most recently, I wrote several chapters for the newly-published Arizona Tort Law Handbook. Finally, a recent selection as a Super Lawyers’ “Rising Star - Southwest 2012” in Employment & Labour Law was particularly gratifying for me given that it was a designation voted on by my peers in the Phoenix legal market.
www.lawyer-monthly.com
What are the key types of employment- related cases you deal with?
Among the more prevalent or “key” employment- related cases we defend are cases involving claims of discrimination or retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII. Claims of misclassification of employees or wrongful failure to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act continue to affect employers, both large and small. Finally, cases involving employment agreements, including non-compete agreements, non- solicitation agreements, and confidentiality agreements, are always “key” in employment law. At any given time, we are litigating several such cases.
What are the main challenges you face?
Aggressive government agencies that pursue employee-related claims that have little, or no, substantive merit pose a significant challenge to all employers. Enforcement agents for agencies like the EEOC, NLRB, and DOL likely think they are helping employees when they engage in hardline tactics aimed at forcing employers to settle or face costly and time-consuming litigation. However, these actions ultimately impact employees by imposing unjustifiable costs on employers. Another often overlooked cost is the negative impact on both employers and employees when employers are constrained by aggressive agency action to keep employees whose performance would otherwise warrant termination.
When employers are forced to incur these unnecessary expenses, their ability to invest in
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112