<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
		<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/rss.xsl'?>
		<rss version='2.0' 
			xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
			xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
		<channel>
			<title>Management Rights</title>     
			<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/</link>
			<atom:link href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
			<description></description>
			
			<item>
				<title>D.C. Circuit Strikes Down NLRB Poster Rule</title>
				<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/NLRB-Poster-Rule</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/209</guid>
				<dc:creator>Caroline M. Koehler</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>On May 7, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) rule requiring both union and non-union employers to display posters informing employees of their right to form a union and engage in other concerted activity.</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/NLRB-Poster-Rule'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-law'>Labor Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,national-labor-relations-act'>National Labor Relations Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,unions'>Unions</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Federal Government May Follow States By Raising Minimum Wage</title>
				<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Raising-Minimum-Wage</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/207</guid>
				<dc:creator>Jennifer W. Colvin</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>On March 5, 2013, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage.&nbsp; If enacted, the recently-proposed Fair Minimum Wage Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over three years.&nbsp; The increase would be accomplished by establishing a minimum wage of $8.20 per hour on the first day of the third month after enactment - an increase of 95 cents over the current federal minimum wage - followed by a minimum wage of $9.15 per hour one year after the initial bump and then $10.10 per hour a year later.</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Raising-Minimum-Wage'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Classification'>Classification</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Fair-Labor-Standards-Act'>Fair Labor Standards Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Fair-Minimum-Wage'>Fair Minimum Wage</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Federal-Minimum-Wage'>Federal Minimum Wage</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,job-description'>job description</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-law'>Labor &amp; Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,litigation'>Litigation</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Misclassification'>Misclassification</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,posting-requirements'>posting requirements</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,State-Minimum-Wage'>State Minimum Wage</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-wage-hour'>Wage &amp; Hour</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Wage-Increase'>Wage Increase</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Eleventh Circuit Finds That Repeated Extensions of a Leave of Absence is Not A Reasonable Accommodation</title>
				<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Repeated-Extensions-Leave-of-Absence</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/205</guid>
				<dc:creator>Cole D. Bond</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>In addressing a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, the Eleventh Circuit ruled this past week that an indefinite leave of absence does not constitute a reasonable accommodation.</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Repeated-Extensions-Leave-of-Absence'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,adaaa'>ADAAA</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Americans-with-Disabilities-Act'>Americans with Disabilities Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-law'>Labor &amp; Employment Law</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Recent DirecTV Decision Highlights the NLRB's Scrutiny of Employer Confidentiality Policies</title>
				<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Recent_DirecTV_Decision</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/204</guid>
				<dc:creator>Jennifer D. Johnson</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>Demonstrating the NLRB’s increased focus on limiting employer confidentiality rules, a three member panel of the NLRB recently ruled in <em>DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings LLC,</em> 359 NLRB No. 4 (January 25, 2013) that four work rules maintained by DirecTV were unlawful restrictions on employees’ Section 7 rights and that the employer did not repudiate the rules.&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Recent_DirecTV_Decision'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Confidentiality'>Confidentiality</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Employer-Handbook'>Employer Handbook</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Employer-Policies'>Employer Policies</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Employer-Rules'>Employer Rules</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-law'>Labor Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Media-Policy'>Media Policy</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,national-labor-relations-act'>National Labor Relations Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,National-Labor-Relations-Board'>National Labor Relations Board</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,NLRB'>NLRB</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,privacy'>Privacy</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,privacy-laws'>Privacy Laws</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Repudation'>Repudation</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>2012 Fiscal Year EEOC Enforcement Statistics Reveal Decrease in Overall Charges and Increase in Employer Payouts</title>
				<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/2012-FY-EEOC-Enforcement-Statistics</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/203</guid>
				<dc:creator>Jennifer D. Johnson</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>The recently released 2012 EEOC enforcement statistics indicated an overall decrease in charges and increase in damages paid by employers.&nbsp; Notably, for the second consecutive year, the EEOC reduced its pending inventory of private sector charges by 10% from fiscal year 2011, bringing inventory to 70,312.&nbsp; However, the EEOC obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery in 2012, totaling $365.4 million. &nbsp;Leading the states in originating charges was Texas at 9.0% of charges filed nationally, followed by Florida (8.0%) and California (7.4%).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/2012-FY-EEOC-Enforcement-Statistics'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,2012-Charge-Statistics'>2012 Charge Statistics</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,adaaa'>ADAAA</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Americans-with-Disabilities-Act'>Americans with Disabilities Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Disability-Discrimination'>Disability Discrimination</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,EEOC'>EEOC</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Equal-Employment-Opportunity-Commission'>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Equal-Pay'>Equal Pay</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Genetic-Information-Discrimination'>Genetic Information Discrimination</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-harassment'>Harassment</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-law'>Labor &amp; Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,National-Origin-Discrimination'>National Origin Discrimination</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Race-Discrimination'>Race Discrimination</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Religion-Discrimination'>Religion Discrimination</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Retaliation'>Retaliation</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,sexual-harassment'>Sexual Harassment</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Employee’s Vacation Facebook Photos Help Defeat FMLA Interference and Retaliation Claim in E.D. Michigan</title>
				<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2013 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Facebook_Photos_Defeat_FMLA_Claim</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/202</guid>
				<dc:creator>Jennifer D. Johnson</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>As the FMLA celebrates its 20<sup>th</sup> birthday this February, social media continues to be an increasingly important resource for employers in combating frivolous FMLA interference and retaliation charges by former employees.&nbsp; </p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Facebook_Photos_Defeat_FMLA_Claim'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Americans-with-Disabilities-Act'>Americans with Disabilities Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Disability-Leave'>Disability Leave</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,evidence'>Evidence</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,facebook'>Facebook</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,Family-and-Medical-Leave-Act'>Family and Medical Leave Act</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-employment-law'>Labor &amp; Employment Law</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,myspace'>MySpace</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,privacy'>Privacy</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,privacy-laws'>Privacy Laws</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,social-media'>Social Media</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,social-media-content'>Social Media Content</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,social-networking-sites'>Social Networking Sites</a>, <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,technology'>Technology</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>NLRB Recess Appointments Unconstitutional</title>
				<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/NLRB_Recess_Appointments_Unconstitutional</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/200</guid>
				<dc:creator>G. Randall Ayers</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>The D.C. Circuit holds that President Obama’s January 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional, arguably undermining the precedential value of controversial decisions &nbsp;of 2012. (<em>Noel Canning v. NLRB</em>, January 25, 2013.)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/NLRB_Recess_Appointments_Unconstitutional'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,labor-law'>Labor Law</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Fair Employment Opportunity Act and New NLRA Posting Rule</title>
				<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Fair-Employment-Opportunity-Act-NLRA</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/183</guid>
				<dc:creator>Mark J. Chumley</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>There have been a couple of interesting developments this week in labor and employment law.&nbsp; First, some may recall that I posted earlier this summer about the employment practice of refusing to consider the unemployed for <a title="" target="_blank" href="http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Review_Job_Postings">open positions</a>.&nbsp; I mentioned at the time that a bill had been introduced, the Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), that would amend Title VII to add “unemployment status” to the list of protected classes.&nbsp; Employment Law Matters <a title="" target="_blank" href="http://www.employmentlawmatters.net/2011/08/articles/employment-laws/fair-employment-opportunity-act-would-prohibit-hiring-discrimination-against-unemployed-job-seekers/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+EmploymentLawMatters+%28Employment+Law+Matters%29&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader">reports</a> that the effort to pass such a law continues:</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Fair-Employment-Opportunity-Act-NLRA'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>EEOC Ordered to Pay Millions in Attorneys’ Fees Again</title>
				<pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/EEOC-Ordered-to-Pay-Millions</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/181</guid>
				<dc:creator>Mark J. Chumley</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>Those of you who follow such things have no doubt enjoyed the recent federal court decisions taking the EEOC to task for its “sue first, ask questions later” approach to class action litigation.&nbsp; As one commentator has <a title="" target="_blank" href="http://www.insidecounsel.com/2011/07/06/labor-courts-keep-sanctioning-eeoc-in-class-litiga">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-right: 0px" dir="ltr">
<p>Perhaps the most notable of these recent cases is EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC on behalf of 67 women, and awarded CRST more than $4 million in attorneys’ fees. The district court, in finding the EEOC’s prosecution of the case to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation, sharply criticized the EEOC’s litigation strategy as one of “sue first, ask questions later.” Here, the district court found that the EEOC failed to investigate the specific allegations of the 67 class members until after the civil action was commenced. In fact, the EEOC had not interviewed any of the women who were supposedly sexually harassed and did not subpoena any documents to determine if the allegations were true. Before filing suit, the EEOC also did not identify any of the 67 female class members and did not attempt to conciliate the allegations of those women. In the end, the district court found that the EEOC had not complied with its own administrative requirements and dismissed the case due to the jurisdictional defects.&nbsp;</p></blockquote>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/EEOC-Ordered-to-Pay-Millions'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Work-Life Balance Not Required By Law and Other Interesting Reading</title>
				<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
				<link>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Work-Life-Balance-Not-Required</link>
				<guid>http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/182</guid>
				<dc:creator>Mark J. Chumley</dc:creator>
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>As some readers may have noticed, I have been on a brief hiatus from blogging.&nbsp; This was primarily due to my real job, practicing labor and employment law, and a much needed vacation.&nbsp; I am back now and offer you some interesting reading that I came across recently:&nbsp;</p>
<p><a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/Work-Life-Balance-Not-Required'>Read more ...</a> </p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='http://labor-employment.kmklaw.com/topic,employment-law'>Employment Law</a></div>
				</div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item><div id='historyLinks'><a class='first' href='?page=2'>Older Posts</a></div>
		</channel>
		</rss>
		