Companies that do business across state lines are subject to a patchwork of state and local laws governing their relationship with their employees at all levels in the chain of command. Especially for companies that do business in many different states, keeping up with the applicable laws can be full-time work.  On Monday, we highlighted a new law in Illinois that arguably gives employees and job applicants rights in their interactions with employers that they would not otherwise have.  A recent appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit of a ruling (the district court order upholding the magistrate’s report and recommendation is here) further underscores the variation in states’ laws when it comes to protections for employees.  Starbucks' recent brief on appeal is here.

• Summary Judgment
• Wage and Hour‎

This just in: on Thursday, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a new law making it unlawful for an employer to request or require an employee or prospective employee to provide the password for his or her account or profile on a social networking site. The law, which amends Illinois’s existing Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, and goes into effect on January 1, 2013, supposedly addresses the trend of employers requiring job applicants to give access to their Facebook profiles as part of the job application process.

• Discrimination
• Social Media

The latest gold medalists in the race for our attention: 

• Not that Chick-fil-A needed more publicity, but Laura Hautala of the Los Angeles Times brought us the fascinating story of Adam Smith, chief financial officer of a Tuscon medical equipment manufacturer named Vante.  Smith went to the drive-thru of his local Chick-fil-A, told the employees that they worked for a hateful company, and then posted the confrontation on YouTube.  Shortly thereafter, Vante fired him.  In a press statement, Vante did not identify Smith’s ordering of free water as the straw that broke the camel’s back.

• Discrimination
• The Inbox
• Wrongful Termination

On Monday, we talked about how plaintiffs can prove pregnancy discrimination by direct evidence – the proverbial “smoking gun.”  Now, it’s time to tackle how a plaintiff can prove pregnancy discrimination under the McDonnell-Douglas test, through making a prima facie case of discrimination and then rebutting the employer’s assertion that it acted for legitimate, nonpretextual reasons.  Once again, the star of our hypothetical scenario is Marissa Mayer, the newsworthy new Yahoo! CEO.

• Discrimination
• Pregnancy Discrimination

Marissa Mayer is big news these days.  She’s the new Yahoo! CEO, at only 37 years old.  She’s also expecting her first child, and made waves when she told Fortune Magazine that her maternity leave would be a “few weeks long” and she’d “work through it.” 

All of the hullaballoo over Mayer’s career and personal life made the Suits by Suits team curious.  What if Mayer suffered repercussions at Yahoo! due to her pregnancy or upcoming childbirth?  How would she be able to prove that Yahoo! discriminated against her?

• Discrimination
• Pregnancy Discrimination

• Bill Singer, writing in Forbes, discusses one potential consequence for financial industry employees who arbitrate employment disputes with former employers: future employers can see them as willing to fight these disputes and this negative branding can harm chances of employment.
• Evan J. Shenkman, in a piece posted on Lexology, discusses an interesting New Jersey case involving an alcoholic nurse who also had anxiety problems: when she was terminated for not showing up to work, the employer suggested she was being fired for both alcoholism and lack of attendance – and that, therefore, a jury could have concluded she was wrongfully terminated for her alcoholism (attendance is generally a valid reason for termination, the court held).
• This article doesn’t deal with United States law (our usual focus here on Suits by Suits), but in a ‎tip of our beret to our friends in Britain hosting the Olympics, here’s an article that those with an ‎interest in UK employment law might like: Charlotte Lloyd-Jones discusses a recent case there ‎where employees were fired for “gross misconduct on the basis that they were preparing to ‎compete with their employer,” as a breach of an employment contract. The appellate tribunal ‎held that just because the employees might compete in the future didn’t supply a basis for firing ‎them in the present. It also held that the employees have to drive on the left.‎
• And, from the nightmares of the near future department: should employees post on Facebook ‎while they’re in termination meetings with their employers? And if they do, what should ‎employers do about it? It’s already happened, in a case involving an American Airlines ‎employee. Daniel Schwarz has some interesting commentary on this issue here. Welcome to the ‎future!‎

• Arbitration
• The Inbox

Here’s another post in our occasional series on religious discrimination in the workplace.  Today, we’re looking at a decision by the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that brings together three different concepts: religious organizations as employers, disabled persons as employees, and federal laws that apply to hiring.  As when you mix any three ingredients that are fine on their own, the results can be disastrous.  Throw in legislative history – the record Congress creates when it writes a law, and which some courts look to for guidance on how to interpret that law – and you have one fine mess. 

• Discrimination
• Religious Discrimination‎

For your reading list:  The best advice for employees who don’t want to get caught in a non-compete agreement with a former employer, writes Elizabeth Ditts of Corporate Counsel magazine, is to avoid signing them in the first place.  But that’s usually easier said than  done, and Ditts’ article thoughtfully points out things an employee and her prospective new employer need to think about when the employee has a non-compete with the old employer.  Her key conclusion, and it’s probably easier than litigating out of the contract: the employee and the old employer negotiate a way out of the deal, with the new employer watching carefully. 

We’ve written before about the sexual harassment suit between the Kleiner Perkins venture capital firm and its former partner, Ellen Pao.  Developments at the end of last week point out another reason to follow this case, however (and the great Leonard Cohen is only part of the story). 

• Arbitration
• Wrongful Termination

This week in suits by suits and other related items of interest:

• The EEOC has brought a lawsuit against Pace Solano -- a firm that provides services to disabled adults -- on behalf of a woman who claims that her hiring offer was rescinded after Pace Solano learned that she has partial paralysis in one of her hands.
• Four former sales representatives have brought a federal class action lawsuit against New York-based drug manufacturer Forest Laboratories, Inc., seeking more than $100 million in damages.  The lawsuit alleges that Forest Labs engaged in pervasive sexual discrimination against women, denying female employees -- particularly those who became pregnant or had young children at home -- the same pay, bonuses, and promotions as its male employees.
• Mary Ruotolo, the former executive director of a New York chapter of the Ronald McDonald House Charities, has sued her former employer under a New Jersey state whistleblower statute, alleging retaliatory termination after she began raising concerns about her chapter's financial condition.  Ms. Ruotolo's suit also alleges fraudulent inducement in connection with her hiring.
• In a case we continue to monitor, Law360 (membership required) reports that two former ArthroCare Corp. executives moved to dismiss a lawsuit by the SEC demanding repayment of bonuses and stock profits under section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, arguing that the SEC's interpretation -- which would seek to clawback bonuses from executives even where those individuals have not been specifically charged with any wrongdoing -- would violate constitutional principles of fairness and due process.  A separate motion sought to declare Section 304 "void for vagueness."
• Law360 also reports that the trustee overseeing the Radar Networks, Inc. bankruptcy has reached a stipulation permitting a lawsuit to go forward against outgoing Yahoo, Inc. CEO Ross Levinsohn -- a former Radar director -- and other former Radar insiders, alleging fraud and conversion of approximately $3 million in Radar assets.  The trustee concluded that permitting the lawsuit would be "in the best interests of the estate" and recommended approval by the bankruptcy court.  Levinsohn replaced Scott Thompson as CEO of Yahoo! after Thompson was forced to resign amidst allegations of resume padding, as we discussed previously.
• Speaking of Yahoo!, Elizabeth Dilts of Law.com's Corporation Counsel has written an interesting article discussing non-compete agreements in light of Marissa Mayer's recent decision to leave Google, Inc. to become CEO at Yahoo! (following Levinsohn and Thompson).  Yahoo! is, of course, one of Google's chief competitors.

• Breach of Contract
• Discrimination
• Motions to Dismiss
• The Inbox
• Wrongful Termination