• 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

We have previously discussed the perils of social media in the workplace, including the much-publicized case in which women’s clothing retailer Francesca’s fired its CEO for disclosing insider information over Twitter.  (The gem was his tweet of “Board meeting.  Good numbers = Happy Board” several hours before the actual board meeting itself at which the numbers were disclosed.”)

We’ve also discussed some of the problems of unauthorized disclosure from the perspective of the employee, which is of course exacerbated by near-ubiquitous social media technology at work that makes it trivially easy for anyone to fire off an email, a Tweet, or a post on Facebook without considering whether that disclosure might violate the employee’s legal obligations.

• Social Media

• A former D.C. teacher’s lawsuit alleging that he was fired in retaliation for reporting to the then-D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee that his principal instructed him and other teachers to alter students’ scores on standardized tests has survived a motion to dismiss in federal court. 
• After a San Francisco judge already rejected its argument, Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins has filed additional pleadings in the sexual harassment case brought against it by its partner Ellen Pao contending that her claims should be arbitrated because she signed agreements with investment funds raised by Kleiner Perkins (although not Kleiner Perkins itself) agreeing to arbitrate these kinds of disputes.

• JP Morgan reports that it has clawed back about two years of annual compensation from the three London-based traders it says are responsible for the trading losses reported by the company in May.  The traders are fighting back.  

• The Inbox

Continuing our coverage of the sexual discrimination lawsuit between former partner Ellen Pao and venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins (prior stories are here and here), on Friday, Kleiner Perkins moved the San Francisco Superior Court to compel arbitration of its dispute for a second time -- this time with a twist.

• Arbitration
• Discrimination

On Monday, I reviewed the basic contours of a wrongful termination claim.  I pointed out that, under state common law, you may have a wrongful termination claim against an employer if you were fired in violation of public policy, but that states vary on what public policy means in this context.  

• The Basics
• Wrongful Termination

I don’t know where you are when you’re reading this.  Thanks to the Internet, you could be anywhere from Abu Dhabi to Zagreb. 

But if you’re in the same place I am – Washington, D.C. – you likely know a few things about defense contracting.  First, it’s big business – over $1.5 trillion in military contracts have been let since October of 2006.  Second, as much as Washington is a “company town” that relies for its economic life, in large part, on the federal government itself, this area also relies on the substantial presence of several huge companies that specialize in contracting with the military – including household (Pentagon-hold?) names like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, Science Applications International Corporation, CACI, and Northrup Grumman. If you know those two things, then you know a third: those contracts are zealously guarded and fought over. 

That’s the context for a dispute between Tifco Industries and its former sales manager, Mike Carrillo.  According to Tifco, Carrillo – once he went to work for a competitor – started badmouthing Tifco to military contracting officers, telling them Tifco was under investigation.  Much of Tifco’s work is from the military, so it couldn’t take Carrillo’s statements lying down.