Employment Law
Authors:
Rothstein, Mark A. / Craver, Charles B. / Hebert, L. Camille / Lobel, Orly / Malloy, S. Elizabeth / McCormick, Marcia L. / Sperino, Sandra F.
Edition:
6th
Copyright Date:
2019
21 chapters
have results for Employment Law
Preface v 3 results
- Employment law is a dynamic and, at times, seemingly disconnected field of law. We have written this hornbook to provide law students with a conceptual framework and explanations of the legal doctrines involved in the field. Because employment law is the study of nonunion employment, the book does not discuss the law of unionization and collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act.
- The book is organized chronologically. It proceeds through the employment relationship from formation, through terms and conditions of employment, to termination. This approach recognizes that a potential legal controversy at any stage of the employment relationship may simultaneously implicate numerous statutory and common law considerations.
- Throughout the book, references have been kept to a minimum. Students interested in more detailed reference material, such as citations to every applicable federal or state statute or more expansive case citations, should consult our two volume work, Employment Law, in Thomson Reuters’ Practitioner Treatise Series.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 1. ESTABLISHING THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP 1 238 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Although many aspects of modern employment law differ greatly from earlier common law rules, the tort consequences of the employment relationship still follow closely traditional common law doctrines. In particular, liability principles of employment law today are substantially based on the common law of master and servant. These rules remain extremely important and govern a wide range of tort actions, including the liability of an employer for the torts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.
- Most states began licensing and regulating employment agencies during the Great Depression, when high unemployment led to some exploitative and unscrupulous employment agency practices. Many of these laws remain on the books, although others have been repealed, amended, or updated. Today, about two-thirds of the states have laws that regulate employment agencies in some way. Some state laws also prohibit employers from charging a fee to employees seeking to obtain or continue employment.
- The laws also draw distinctions between employee leasing companies and temporary employment services. In general, these statutes expressly exclude temporary employment companies from coverage under the state’s regulatory structure. Oregon excludes temporary employment by defining “employee leasing companies” as not including the provision of employees to clients on a temporary basis to cover shortages, seasonal fluctuations, and special assignments.
- Other employment discrimination laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, also prohibit discrimination by employment agencies.
- As of 2019, 35 states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws prohibiting genetic discrimination in employment. Although there are differences between the laws, they all generally prohibit employers from (1) making genetic testing a condition of employment; (2) requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information about an applicant or employee; and (3) using genetic information in making an employment decision about an employee. Genetic information is defined as either the results of a genetic test or (more frequently) the results of a genetic test of the individual or a family member or the health history of a family member.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. Discrimination: Race, National Origin, Sex, Religion and Age 75 789 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Unlike the federal law, state and local laws that prohibit employment discrimination are not restricted in their coverage to those persons who affect interstate commerce. Typically, state laws follow the federal law in their coverage of employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies, but there are many differences between state and federal coverage and among the various states.
- The ADEA does not protect against all age discrimination in employment. The Act limits its protection to individuals who are aged forty and over and thus permits discrimination against younger people on the basis of their age. Although some state and local laws protect individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of any age, the federal law does not extend that far.
- The history of arbitration law and federal antidiscrimination law has been as tumultuous as the history of class action law and federal antidiscrimination law. The current trend precludes many employment discrimination plaintiffs from reaching court because they entered into agreements related to mandatory arbitration of all claims arising from their employment. Although historically such agreements were not upheld, they are now the subject of considerable deference.
- The Act also directed the Judicial Conference to study and report to Congress on the application to the judicial branch of a variety of labor and employment laws, including Title VII. The result was the Model Employment Dispute Resolution Plan (“Model EDR Plan”) adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States.
- Although federal law is trending against individual liability, some states allow suit against individual supervisors or co-workers, either under common law tort or state employment discrimination statutes.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Occupational Safety and Health 649 69 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The availability of common law remedies to protect employment opportunities and improve working conditions is severely limited by three legal doctrines: the “at will” employment doctrine, the preemption of state law by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the “exclusive remedy” provisions of state workers’ compensation laws. Nevertheless, there are some ways in which the common law may be used to protect employment opportunities and improve working conditions.
- is the primary federal law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. Virtually every state also has a law prohibiting such discrimination and, in some states, the protections extend more broadly. The provisions of the ADA and the state laws are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
- employment and a place of employment” free from recognized hazards. Thus, unlike section 5(a)(2)
- is the primary federal law regulating workplace safety and health. It covers employment in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all American territories-at least 6 million workplaces and 90 million employees. The Act does not apply to working conditions of employees over which other state and federal agencies exercise statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health.
- a contractor providing security services at an INS facility was held to be an employer under the OSH Act because it paid the employees’ salary and benefits and had a direct supervisory role. The Commission applied the common law agency doctrine to hold that the contractor had an employment relationship with the security personnel.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. BANKRUPTCY, PLANT CLOSINGS, AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 945 136 results (showing 5 best matches)
- the state shall participate in any arrangements for the payment of compensation on the basis of combining an individual’s wages and employment covered under the State law with his wages and employment covered under the unemployment compensation law of other States which are approved by the Secretary of Labor * * * as reasonably calculated to assure the prompt and full payment of compensation in such situations. Any such arrangement shall include provisions for (1) applying the base period of a single State law to a claim involving the combining of an individual’s wages and employment covered under two or more State laws, and (2) avoiding duplicate use of wages and employment by reason of such combining.
- Courts do not apply the Restatement factors on a strictly numerical basis. “The result in a particular case is governed by a weighing of all the factors in the light of the facts, and is almost completely ‘a matter of judgment.’ ” Even when the number of factors supporting an employment relationship is equal to or fewer than the number of factors indicating the presence of an independent contractor arrangement, an employer-employee relationship will generally be found if the employment relationship factors are more significant than the independent contractor factors. Courts often find an employment relationship in close cases, because they recognize that unemployment statutes are designed to protect individuals who are out of work. They thus interpret unemployment laws liberally to favor coverage.
- The Supreme Court has recognized that section 3304(a)(12) does not prevent states from disqualifying claimants who voluntarily terminate their employment for reasons unrelated to their employer. Although this federal provision forbids states from singling out pregnancy for disadvantageous treatment, it does not compel states to treat pregnancy in a preferential manner. States may thus apply to pregnant employees statutory provisions that disqualify workers who voluntarily terminate their employment without good cause attributable to their employer. Under such disqualification laws, claimants can avoid a loss of eligibility only if they can demonstrate that job-related circumstances adversely affected their pregnant condition and forced them to resign. If it is not clear that the employment environment caused the resignations, disqualification generally results.
- The unemployment compensation laws in all fifty states and the District of Columbia disqualify otherwise eligible individuals who refuse, without good cause, to accept “suitable” employment during the period of their unemployment. In 35 states and the District of Columbia, claimants who reject suitable employment are disqualified for the duration of their unemployment. They can only regain eligibility through subsequent gainful employment for a minimum of time ranging from four weeks in Delaware, Illinois, and Oregon to 14 weeks in Idaho and 17 weeks in Florida. In seven states, the disqualification period is fixed, running from three to seven weeks in every state but Colorado, which provides a 20 week period of ineligibility. The statutes in the remaining five states provide variable periods of disqualification that are dependent upon the particular circumstances involved.
- Courts in several of the states that have incorporated the ABC Test apply their statutes as if their legislatures had codified the common law master-servant doctrine. They thus find covered employment relationships only in situations in which such relationships would be determined through application of the Restatement section 220 criteria. Courts in most ABC Test states, however, have assumed that the legislature envisioned broader coverage, and they frequently find covered employment relationships in circumstances that would probably not qualify for inclusion under the master-servant approach.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. COVENANTS NOT TO COMPETE AND RELATED ISSUES 829 143 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The first two categories—sale of business and end of partnership—commonly involve extensive contracts, where any noncompetition agreement is an additional clause. When an employment relationship is involved, the fact that there is a contract underlying the relationship is usually less salient to a worker than the presence of other statutory and common law duties. As in other areas of employment law, the interplay of these rights and duties creates complex case law that has occupied courts since the 19th century. Moreover, noncompete policy should be understood to be at the intersections of contract law, employment law, intellectual property, and antitrust law. The questions of enforceability, scope, and interpretation of restrictive covenants in employment contracts do not only concern the relationship between the two sides—the employer and
- The Nevada Supreme Court reviewed this issue as a matter of first impression in 1997, and it agreed with the majority position that continued employment is sufficient consideration, at least in cases of at-will employment. but subsequently the Seventh Circuit interpreted Indiana law narrowly to require a specific reaffirmation of a commit to continue at-will employment and would not let such a promise be implied.
- Because these three types of restraints invoke different policy considerations, the law has developed similar but separate approaches to noncompetition agreements in the contexts of employment versus the sale of an interest in a business or partnership.
- The duty of loyalty during the time of employment is distinguishable from any duty not to compete after termination of employment. Even if the employee has no contractual duty after termination, any competing conduct during the time of employment is a violation of the duty of loyalty. In for example, a food distributorship sales representative told customers along his assigned route that he would be going into business for himself and that he could supply the same products at the same prices as the distributorship. The court found that these statements went beyond merely notifying customers of his intentions and constituted active solicitation in violation of his common law duty of loyalty. It was irrelevant to this claim that there was no agreement between the parties for the sales representative to refrain from competition after employment.
- As a practical matter, the rule against specific performance for the receipt of services has been eroded by exceptions in modern law. The major statutory exception to this common law rule is employment discrimination law, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state fair employment practice laws. so the force of a Title VII order is rarely personal for the employer. Thus, for example, a small shoe store with four employees is not subject to a Title VII order to reinstate an employee fired on the basis of gender or race. State discrimination laws often extend even to the small employer, however, and federal law extends to the Therefore, the common law rationale for declining to order receipt of employment services is implicitly rejected in these particular statutory actions.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. DISCHARGE 875 202 results (showing 5 best matches)
- [t]ermination of employment without legal cause after such a period of time offends the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing contained in all contracts * * *. As a result of this covenant, a duty arose on the part of the employer * * * to do nothing which would deprive plaintiff * * * of the benefits of the employment bargain—benefits described in the complaint as having accrued during plaintiff’s 18 years of employment.
- A little more than one-fifth of the states permit the use of the implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing to challenge discharges or other employer actions in certain limited situations. The
- Employment contracts for a definite term and other for-cause employment relationships are clearly protected against tortious interference; virtually all states, even some that are generally hostile to wrongful discharge claims, protect at-will employment contracts as well. For instance, the Alabama Supreme Court, which has yet to recognize a common law cause of action against an employer for discharge of an at-will employee, has described at-will employment as a “property right” worthy of protection in the context of a tortious interference claim against a third party. contains a requirement of a constitutionally protected property interest, the Supreme Court remarked that the harm alleged, “essentially third-party interference with at-will employment relationships,” has long been a compensable injury under state tort law, under the claims of intentional interference with contractual relations and intentional interference with prospective contractual relations.
- Many employers ask workers whose employment has been terminated to sign a release or waiver of claims. In exchange for the receipt of various benefits, the employee agrees not to bring common law or statutory causes of action arising from his or her employment, including actions for wrongful discharge. Although some employment statutes, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, restrict an employee’s ability to waive his or her rights, generally courts uphold releases of other employment rights as long as the releases are knowing
- In addition to state whistleblower protection, most state labor laws contain provisions protecting employees who file complaints, assist investigations, testify in proceedings, or otherwise assert their rights under the particular law. In contrast with the whistleblower laws, these provisions apply only to the assertion of rights under the specific law of which they are a part. For example, state fair employment practice laws, commonly prohibit retaliation against employees who file complaints alleging discrimination. State occupational safety and health laws generally prohibit retaliation against employees who file complaints or assert their rights to a safe workplace. Many state workers’ compensation laws prohibit retaliation because workers have filed claims for compensation. Not all of these provisions specifically authorize employees to sue for retaliation, but states that recognize the public policy exception to the employment-at-will rule often use these provisions as the...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT 605 101 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As in some other areas of employment law, many of the first successful actions challenging employer prerogatives have involved public-sector employees. Using the governmental action of public employment, employees have invoked constitutional protections, such as freedom of expression and association, search and seizure, and liberty. In the non-union private sector, employees have relied on civil rights statutes and common law principles, with varying degrees of success. The expectations of individual employees also have been influenced by collective bargaining agreements, which have set industry standards regarding conditions of employment.
- Both personnel files and employee medical records make up employment records. Statutory and case law involving employment records has centered around three factual situations. First, an employee may seek access to his or her own records. This is usually pursuant to a state statute. Second, a third party may seek access to an employee’s records. Examples of third parties include journalists, unions, co-employees, attorneys, plaintiffs in personal injury actions against the employer, and citizen groups. Third, the employee may claim that improper information is contained in his or her employment records or that the contents of the records have been wrongfully disseminated. Actions for negligent maintenance of employment records, defamation, and invasion of privacy have been brought based on this third category.
- concerns, such as trade secret disclosures, the law has sanctioned employer regulation of employee expression. Where the employers’ interests are less direct, however, the law has sometimes granted a remedy to employees whose freedom of expression has been limited. As with many of the conditions of employment explored in this chapter, the most important consideration in analyzing the rights of employees is whether the employment at issue is public or private.
- State Fair Employment Laws
- State Fair Employment Laws
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 725 362 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The overwhelming majority of state workers’ compensation laws require claimants seeking benefits to demonstrate not only that they sustained injuries their employment, but also that their conditions their employment. Courts frequently have to determine the exact scope of these statutory concepts. They have generally recognized that the “course of employment” prerequisite concerns the time, location, and circumstances indigenous to the incident in question, while the “arising out of” component pertains to the underlying cause of claimant injuries.
- The contract of employment requirement may affect the compensation rights of persons who lack the legal capacity to establish contractual relationships or who have not established employment affiliations voluntarily. For example, a few states have yet to overrule the archaic common law rule denying wives the capacity to enter into contractual arrangements with their husbands, thereby refusing to extend workers’ compensation coverage to wives employed by their husbands. Most state courts that have formally considered this question, however, have rejected the common law approach and have sustained the capacity of wives to establish covered employment relationships with their husbands.
- Victims of other idiopathic conditions that flare up in work settings may obtain statutory protection if they can establish that employment-related stress, excitement, or exertion aggravated or accelerated their preexisting infirmities. For example, individuals whose pulmonary conditions, such as asthma or lung cancer, are aggravated by the inhalation of particles found in work environments are likely to obtain benefits. Statutory coverage is also likely with respect to workers whose preexisting back weaknesses or heart conditions are aggravated or accelerated by job-related stress, excitement, or exertion. Many courts also cover nervous disorders that are exacerbated by job stress. The fact that the employment environment meaningfully contributes to the final result in these situations is considered sufficient to establish the requisite employment connection. Although the pertinent work-related stress or strain might not cause problems for persons without preexisting personal...
- Suppose an Indiana resident enters into an employment contract in Ohio with a New York company to perform work in Kentucky. If the person were to sustain an employment-related injury while working in Kentucky, which state’s workers’ compensation law should be applied? If the individual files a claim with the administrative agency of a state that is unwilling to apply its statute to this incident, the claim will probably be dismissed. An agency in one state will usually not apply the law of another jurisdiction. It is thus imperative that the claimant file in a jurisdiction willing to apply its own statute. Depending on their conflict of laws approach, the worker may be able to file in one of several states.
- Employment endeavors often cause or contribute to other medical conditions that do not involve instantaneous occurrences. Many of these difficulties affect individuals with preexisting weaknesses. Most jurisdictions apply the usual exertion rule to these cases and award benefits to claimants who can establish that their problems arose out of and during the course of their employment. Examples of covered injuries include muscle strains, arthritis, bursitis, cancer, and general arm and leg pain. Nonetheless, some states refuse to cover these conditions if they are precipitated or exacerbated by usual employment exertion. They only sustain benefit awards for injuries caused by unusual job efforts. The decisions denying statutory protection for conditions that result from ordinary work exertion effectively ignore the fact that workers’ compensation laws are intended to provide coverage for all injuries that arise out of and during the course of claimant employment.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Wages, Hours, and Benefits 441 222 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Most state wage payment laws also regulate the payment of wages upon termination of employment. In some states, the employer must pay all accrued wages on the last day of employment or the day after the last day of employment, while in others, the payment may be made on the next regularly scheduled payday. Some states draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary separation from employment and require immediate payment only in cases of involuntary separation. If there is a dispute about the amount of wages owed to an employee, some states require the employer to pay the amount that it concedes to be due. On the death of an employee, some states permit the employer to pay a specified portion of the wages due the deceased worker to his or her surviving family members before transferring the rest to the estate.
- In 2014, the California legislature enacted the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, which went into effect on July 1, 2015. The law requires all employers with at least one employee in California to allow their employees to accrue sick leave at the rate of at least one hour for at least every 30 hours worked. Within two weeks of the effective date of the law, however, the legislature was forced to enact amendments to make clear that any method of accruing sick leave complies with the law as long as employees earn at least three days of paid sick leave by the 120th day of employment. Paid leave policies in place before January 1, 2015, that provide at least as much paid leave required by the law, are also in compliance with the law.
- Examples of ERISA Preemption—State Fair Employment Practice Laws
- prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals who are members of, apply to be members of, perform, apply to perform, or have obligations to perform service in a uniformed service. USERRA prohibits discrimination in initial employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment. “Benefit of employment” is defined as “the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including any advantage, profit, privilege, gain, status, account, or interest (including wages or salary for work performed) that accrues by reason of any employment contract or agreement or an employer policy, plan, or practice.”
- held that ERISA preempts state fair employment practice laws to the extent that they require ERISA plans to provide benefits not required by federal law. involved mandated benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities at a time when federal law permitted employers to discriminate on the basis of pregnancy. ERISA, of course, preempts state discrimination laws only as they relate to benefit plans; claims involving matters such as hiring, promotion, or wages are not affected. Although ERISA does not preempt most state claims alleging discriminatory discharges, some claims may implicate ERISA plans, especially pension plans.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 415 45 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Disability discrimination law has become an important area of employment law and its significance will continue to increase. Factors such as: an aging population; development of medical and other technologies that permit people with disabilities to enter and remain in the work force; and the changing societal notions about the value of individuals with disabilities all lead to an increasing amount of disability discrimination litigation.
- Nearly every state has its own civil rights law prohibiting discrimination in employment based on disability or handicap. Section 501(b) of the ADA provides that the ADA does not preempt any state or local law “that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than are afforded by this Act.”
- There are three main ways that state laws build upon ADA protections. First, the state law may apply to a wider class of employers. Specifically, twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws that apply to employers with fewer than 15 employees. Second, the state law may apply to a wider range of impairments than the ADA, such as individuals who are obese; who have substance abuse problems; or those with disabilities that are not severe enough to meet the ADA’s definition. Third, the state law may more closely regulate certain medical or hiring procedures in employment.
- was the first comprehensive federal law to prohibit employment discrimination against the estimated 43 million Americans with physical or mental disabilities. The ADA’s five titles deal with employment (Title I), public services (Title II), public accommodations operated by private entities (Title III), telecommunications (Title IV), and miscellaneous issues (Title V). The ADA draws heavily upon Titles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
- As with other antidiscrimination laws, section 503 of the ADA prohibits retaliation against any individual for asserting any right under the ADA or participating in any ADA proceeding. The most common bases for retaliation claims have been requesting an accommodation and filing a charge with the EEOC. A range of employer actions have also been held to be covered under section 503, including discharge and delay in approving an assignment. The ADA’s anti-retaliation provision also covers post-employment acts by an employer that interfere with a former employee’s future employment opportunities. Also, in a case where a father and son worked for the same employer, retaliating against the son due to the father’s ADA action was held to be actionable.
- Open Chapter
Index 1087 201 results (showing 5 best matches)
Title Page 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
Center Title 1 result
Chapter 11. Retirement 1001 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- also held that ERISA’s rules on qualified joint and survivor annuities preempted state law, under which an ex-husband sought to impose a constructive trust on his ex-wife’s survivor annuity benefits. At the time that the husband retired, his then-wife vested as beneficiary of a 100% qualified joint and survivor annuity. When they divorced 10 years later, their divorce decree awarded all benefits existing “by reason of [John’s] past, present, or future employment” to the ex-husband. He later remarried and sought to designate his new wife as the beneficiary of his survivor annuity. He then obtained a purported qualified domestic relations order from the Texas court divesting his ex-wife of all ownership in the survivor annuity, although the husband later conceded that the ...state court, seeking to impose a constructive trust on the survivor annuity benefits that she would receive after his death. The court of appeals held that the Texas law sought to be relied on to impose a...
- ERISA does not require a plan to offer early retirement benefits. If a plan does offer early retirement benefits conditioned on the satisfaction of age and service requirements, ERISA requires the payment of actuarially reduced benefits to a participant who has satisfied the service requirement but left employment before reaching the required age when that individual does reach the plan’s early retirement age.
- the First Circuit found no breach of fiduciary duties in the failure of a hospital to give an employee information about its long-term disability plan when the employee switched from part-time to full-time employment and became eligible for benefits under the plan. The court described “two related strands of ERISA cases: those involving plaintiffs seeking substantive remedies, such as reinstatement or retroactive benefits, based on a fiduciary’s failure to comply with ERISA’s technical notice and disclosure requirements; and those involving a fiduciary’s failure to communicate information relevant to the beneficiary’s employment decisions.” The court said that a technical violation of ERISA’s notice requirements, without more, cannot be a fiduciary breach. While a fiduciary may have an obligation to convey accurate information to a beneficiary, including material information that the beneficiary did not specifically request, “fiduciaries need not generally provide individualized...
- plan. An accrued benefit is “vested” or “non-forfeitable,” terms ERISA uses interchangeably, when the participant’s claim to the benefit, either immediately or on a deferred basis, is unconditional and legally enforceable against the plan. A benefit becomes vested when “the employee’s right to the benefit would survive a termination of his employment.”
- Before the enactment of ERISA, a common plan practice was to “backload” benefits by providing for minimal accrual in the early years of employment, with accelerated accrual only as the employee neared retirement age. An employee who did not continue in employment until the plan’s normal retirement age might be 100% vested, but have virtually no accrued benefits. Another of ERISA’s reforms was to prevent an employer from avoiding the impact of the statutory pre-retirement vesting requirements through delayed accrual of this kind.
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 1051 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
Table of Contents 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
West Academic Publishing’s Law School Advisory Board 10 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, Frank R. Strong Chair in LawMichael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Professor of Law Emeritus, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Open Chapter
Table of Statutes 1075 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Publication Date: July 8th, 2019
- ISBN: 9781642424072
- Subject: Employment Law
- Series: Hornbooks
- Type: Hornbook Treatises
- Description: Designed for use with any casebook, the Sixth Edition has been expanded and updated, including such new topics as whether just-in-time workers (e.g., Uber drivers) are employees or independent contractors, along with expert coverage of anti-discrimination laws, wage and hour law, ERISA, privacy in employment, OSHA, workers’ compensation, restrictive covenants, wrongful discharge, unemployment compensation, and pensions.
