Today we continue with our Year in Review segment, which looks at the key labor & employment law developments from 2016 in New York, the DC Metro Area, Massachusetts, and California, while offering our thoughts on 2017. Last week we covered New York and the DC Metro Area.  Now we turn to Massachusetts.  In addition, please join us in NYC on April 6, 2017 for Mintz Levin’s Third Annual Employment Law Summit as we address some of the key labor & employment issues impacting employers in 2017.  Register here.

——————

2016 Massachusetts Employment Law Year in Review

From case law interpreting one of, if not, the most employee-friendly independent contractor statute in the country to Beacon Hill’s efforts to pass non-competition agreement reform, Massachusetts is certainly no stranger to key developments in the labor and employment arena. This blog post highlights the 2016 case law and legislative efforts about which every Massachusetts employer should be aware, and provides insight over what to watch for as we move our way along through 2017 and beyond.

Continue Reading 2016 Massachusetts Employment Law Year In Review

Written by David Cohen with David Katz

Last week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that an employer can fire an employee for use of medical marijuana away from the workplace.  The case is Coats v. Dish Network, No. 13SC394 (June 15, 2015).

Continue Reading Rocky Mountain High Part II: Colorado’s Highest Court Approves Employer’s Stance that Employee Toke is No Joke

As recently reported in Employment Law 360 (subscription required), the EEOC sued US Steel alleging that certain of its alcohol testing practices violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specifically, in EEOC v US Steel Complaint EEOC alleges that US Steel has a policy and practice of randomly testing for alcohol probationary employees at its Clairton, Pennsylvania facility. The test – – an alcohol breath test – – is administered randomly to employees who are within their 90 day probationary period, without regard to whether there exists an objective basis to believe that the employee is under the influence. Interestingly, the practice is spelled out in the collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, Local 1557, which represents the employees, and was also named a defendant to the suit.

Continue Reading EEOC Suit Against US Steel Serves Highlights Union’s Complicity in Allegedly Unlawful Testing of Employees