Recent cases in New York and Pennsylvania demonstrate that, at least in some jurisdictions and under some circumstances, a plaintiff can state a valid claim for unlawful gender discrimination based on a spouse’s jealousy.
We are often asked what, if anything, employers should tell an employee about the reasons for the employee’s termination, especially if the termination is abrupt.
We tell employers to tell the truth.
If you have been following my corporate divorce series, you may have read the “Break Up” piece where I advised newly terminated folks to keep their cool if they are unexpectedly fired because their post-firing behavior might impact a severance offer. Yes, it turns out that your parents were right when they told you that if you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all. And in the ideal world, everyone would play by that golden rule. Sadly, that is not the case in the real world.
Apparently this is a big issue for real divorce cases where courts routinely fashion orders preventing spouses from disparaging one another in their children’s presence. While such court orders are uncommon in employment and other commercial disputes, it is far more common to see private parties contractually agree to play nice after resolving a dispute.
Even though it may stick in our First Amendment craw, it turns out that you can be contractually (and therefore judicially) gagged in the right circumstances. Here are some things employees and employers should keep in mind when negotiating what is commonly known in corporate divorce as “non-disparagement” provisions.
In my last article I promised to examine as part of my Corporate Divorce Series whether alimony (though the politically correct term these days is “spousal support”) is like unemployment (I’m pretty sure it is still acceptable to use that term).
One of the reasons I was inspired to write about this topic is that unemployment appears to provoke the same passionate feelings among employers and employees as alimony does with spouses. So I thought it would be helpful to give some basics about unemployment to give this topic the perspective it deserves.
Unemployment and alimony have similar purposes. Unemployment is a government program that provides temporary financial assistance to employees who have lost a job through no fault of their own. Alimony is a private legal obligation by one spouse to provide financial support resulting from marital separation or divorce. They are similar financial safety nets.
A “no fault” divorce permits a spouse to end a marriage for any reason or no reason at all – its label accurately advertises its results. In fact, in most states, once you satisfy the residency requirements, you can end a marriage surprisingly quickly in the absence of financial or custody disputes. At will employment operates in a similar way.
Who gets what in a break-up? I’ve addressed the employment break-up and the metaphorical marriage contract in my corporate divorce series, but what about the distribution of property when employment ends?
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).
Welcome to the latest installment in my corporate divorce series. In my last article I gave some practical advice about how to handle an unexpected firing – a corporate break-up. Now I’m moving to the other end of the employment life cycle: hiring and negotiation of the employment contract.
My colleagues Jen Rubin and Rich Kelly co-authored an article recently published in Corporate Board Member magazine in which they outline principles and proven techniques to help board members navigate a fast-moving CEO termination. The article emphasizes preparedness for this type of transition and cites steps such as understanding the board’s role, managing legal relationships, informing the board, and following proper corporate procedures. Read the full article here.
Written By David Katz
Last week the Colorado Supreme Court decided to review a 2013 appellate court decision holding that Colorado employers may lawfully terminate employees for their off-duty use of medical marijuana even if they are not impaired on the job. Though oral argument has not yet been set, this case, Coats v. Dish Network, LLC (No. 13SC394), is sure to be closely monitored by employers nationwide due to the growing number of states that have legalized (or are currently considering legislation to legalize) the use of medical marijuana, and in some cases the recreational use of marijuana.