Dorsey S L E Practice Quirky Questions

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Nov 2, 2025, 10:13 AM

The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) have announced several changes to their whistleblower programs and rules, reflecting the federal government’s continued focus on encouraging individuals to report corporate misconduct. Specifically, on May 12, 2025, DOJ expanded its whistleblower program to prioritize additional “high impact” subject areas. On September 9, 2024, during the Biden... One of the most frequently used tools by plaintiffs’ employment attorneys in New York is a claim for unpaid wages under Article Six of the Labor Law. By alleging a violation of Article Six, a plaintiff can pursue not only the recovery of any unpaid wages but also liquidated damages for one hundred percent of the unpaid wages, along with...

Nisha Verma, a partner in Dorsey ’s labor and employment practice, was interviewed about the implications of the recently passed federal tax and spending law, often called the “megabill.” Nisha explained, “This will change... Since coming into office a little over four months ago, the Trump Administration has placed businesses on notice that it views certain actions intended to promote diversity, equity and inclusion (“DEI”) in the workplace... Employment lawyers have been busy helping their... As many of us review our busted brackets ahead of this weekend’s Final Four match ups, universities across the country are preparing for the imminent changes to the rules governing name, image, likeness[1] (“NIL)... The National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) historically has prohibited its member... Dorsey’s Labor and Employment lawyers work closely with clients in five essential areas: a) risk management–litigation avoidance and defense; b) development of effective workplace policies and procedures; c) protection of companies’ intellectual property; d)...

Risk Management encompasses both avoiding and defending litigation. First, Dorsey lawyers partner with clients to (1) reduce the likelihood of litigation and (2) position our clients effectively if litigation is unavoidable. These activities include: Second, notwithstanding our clients’ best efforts, at times litigation is unavoidable. Our Labor and Employment Partners, with many years of trial experience, defend employers in virtually every type of judicial, administrative and arbitral forum, including federal and state court, administrative hearings, arbitrations, NLRB proceedings, etc. These activities include the following:

Regardless of the type of litigation, our approach is guided by five overarching principles: a) early assessment of the merits and corresponding risks of the claim; b) exploration of early resolution where warranted; c)... A crucial part of employment risk management involves working with our clients in the development and implementation of well-integrated, concise and understandable policies and procedures. These policies and procedures span an employee’s association with the employer, from the initial interview through termination and post-termination obligations. Dorsey’s L&E lawyers work closely with clients to avoid and defend against litigation, develop effective workplace policies and procedures, protect intellectual property, support corporate decisions affecting the workplace, and counsel on traditional labor law... You must be logged in to post a comment. Get the most useful news and opportunities in tech twice a week, all for free.

by Jessica Shiffman & Dorsey & Whitney · February 18, 2015 I read with interest the answer to Quirky Question #248 about mandatory arbitration. You mentioned one of the benefits of arbitration being that is more private than a dispute in court, which is certainly a consideration for our company as we determine whether to implement this type... Is that really the case, given the recent legislation I’ve heard about in California requiring arbitration companies to make public everything they do? Answer: By Joel O’Malley and Jessica Shiffman You’re right to be considering the private nature of arbitration as one of the factors in whether to implement mandatory arbitration of employment disputes.

And as your question mentions, California – consistent with its general hostility to arbitration – did recently enact legislation attempting to strip some of the privacy benefits of arbitration. The law broadens what arbitration companies must disclose to the public about otherwise private arbitration, but it’s certainly not everything about the arbitrations. It remains unclear how broadly the scope of that new law will be applied. Before the recent law’s enactment (AB 802), California already had a statute in place requiring private arbitration companies like JAMS and AAA to disclose certain information and make it available on their websites. That information included, among other things: No field of law presents more crazy, oddball, and quirky scenarios as does employment law.

Dorsey’s Quirky Employment Questions blog addresses these questions as they arise in real world employment law practice. The blog was inspired by the numerous questions we routinely receive from clients, as well as the often bizarre fact patterns in reported cases or news articles relating to employment topics. These questions, cases, and articles have also become the basis for an annual seminar during which Dorsey attorneys review a few dozen of the most unusual inquiries we receive or observe during the preceding... If you would be interested in writing an article for the Quirky Questions Blog, please contact Joel O’Malley at omalley.joel@dorsey.com. Other changes, improvements and additions will be made to the Blog in the future, so stay tuned. Now that we have moved to a new Blog platform, we have increased flexibility with respect to available features.

In the future, look for periodic polls on employment topics, mixed media presentations, a new Blog roll, “client only” materials, and other innovations. We are hopeful that you will participate in this electronic forum, contributing your ideas and insights, and sharing your own workplace stories. In addition to offering your insights and analyses of the questions presented, we invite you to send us, at the email address above, questions or general subject areas you would like to see addressed... Similarly, as we strive to improve the blog continually, we invite your comments and feedback. We have an employee who is claiming she has a serious health condition as a result of work-related stress and has given us a note from a nurse practitioner saying she should be off... We don’t believe she has a serious medical condition, in part because we’ve heard that she is working part-time in a similar job.

She has refused to return to work. Can we simply terminate her employment? [Quirky Question # 40 is another one of our California Questions. As such, I have requested one of my California colleagues to provide the analysis. The analysis below was written by Karen Wentzel of our Palo Alto office. As I’ve described previously, Karen is a Stanford Law School grad, who has been practicing employment law for more than 20 years.

Karen’s biography can be found at www.dorsey.com. Her email address is: wentzel.karen@dorsey.com. If you have any particularly unusual questions pertaining to California law, you can send them either to Karen or me.] This scenario arises out of a recent California Supreme Court decision, Lonicki v. Sutter Health Central, 124 Cal. App.4th 1139 (2008).

Employers may be surprised to learn that working at one job while on medical leave and receiving benefits from another may be acceptable in some circumstances. What those circumstances are, however, may not be known until a jury decides. Under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), the California equivalent of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), an employer with 50 or more employees may be required to provide eligible employees with... In Lonicki the California Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s ability to work a second job while on medical leave from another can be evidence that he or she is not suffering from a... [list-coauthors exclude=1,2,8,120,1281,1287,1289]Article Contributors[/list-coauthors] One of our employees, who is Caucasian, recently complained that his manager has been treating him unfairly in a variety of ways.

He claims that his manager is discriminating against him because he is married to an African American woman. Putting aside the issue of whether the manager actually is treating him unfairly, does Title VII even encompass discrimination on the basis of inter-racial marriage? The specific question you posed was, “Does Title VII . . . encompass discrimination on the basis of inter-racial marriage?” Your lead-in to that question, however, (“Putting aside the issue of whether the manager actually is treating him unfairly .

. ..”) is somewhat troubling. As I have suggested in other Blog analyses, employment issues often implicate at least two fundamental issues – what is legally permissible and what is right in a broader, ethical sense. Frequently, the legal and ethical analyses align but that is not always true. Sometimes, the law lags behind. The starting point for my analysis, therefore, would be to ask you a question – if you assumed that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on inter-racial relationships, how would your company address...

I would hope that your response would be that your company would promptly and carefully investigate this situation, and if it determined that your managerial employee was treating your other employee unfairly or discriminatorily... Depending on the facts elicited in your company’s investigation, the appropriate discipline may well be discharge. If your company’s reaction was the opposite, i.e., ‘if it’s not illegal, we’re not going to act,’ I’d simply ask, “Why not?”. Do you really want to employ a managerial employee who is so bigoted that he would treat one of your other employee’s unfairly simply because he is married to a woman of another race? Do you believe that denying equal opportunities to an employee based on the race of his marriage partner, rather than his intellect, diligence, integrity, work ethic, or any other performance-related factors, would likely contribute... I am the Human Resources Director at a mid-size company, with employees in eight states.

We’ve recently read about the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) bringing suit against employers based on pre-employment background checks, as well as some states prohibiting pre-employment credit checks. We certainly don’t want to create potential liability for ourselves based on our pre-employment screening, but feel that criminal and credit checks are a valuable part of our recruiting process. We are beginning to feel that no matter how we proceed, we face potential liability in one way or another. Do you have any advice? You are not alone in your sentiment that choosing whether, when, and how to conduct pre-employment background checks can feel like being asked whether you would prefer to stay in the frying pan or...

While pre-employment background checks offer strong benefits in potential avoidance and defense of employees’ improper conduct, the way such checks are conducted and how information revealed by them is used can lead to unintended... These consequences may include, among other issues, potential liability based on a background check policy or practice that causes a disparate impact on job applicants in protected classes. This was demonstrated by the recent announcement that Pepsi Beverages Co. will pay a $3.13 million settlement to resolve a race discrimination charge filed with the Minneapolis office of the EEOC based on Pepsi’s use of applicant arrest records. In addition to federal and state laws restricting the use of or procedure for conducting pre-employment background checks, federal and state non-discrimination laws may limit an employer’s ability to use credit or criminal background... Practices that may be neutral on their face (such as conducting credit checks on all job applicants) could have a disparate impact on certain protected groups and therefore potentially could lead to disparate impact...

Cf. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 431 (1975) (adopting the EEOC’s determination that test results must predict or correlate with “important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are... § 1607.4(c)); El v.

Dorsey S L E Practice Quirky Questions

People Also Search

The U.S. Department Of Justice (“DOJ”) And The Securities And

Nisha Verma, A Partner In Dorsey ’s Labor And Employment

Risk Management Encompasses Both Avoiding And Defending Litigation. First, Dorsey

Regardless Of The Type Of Litigation, Our Approach Is Guided

By Jessica Shiffman & Dorsey & Whitney · February 18,