Insights
Potential Dangers in Everyday Employment Documents
By Stephen P. Bond on 08/08/2014
As written in the Lorain County Bar Association, Summer, 2014, Volume 9, Issue 3
By, Stephen P. Bond, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group
Click here to read the rest of the article.
By, Stephen P. Bond, Partner, Labor & Employment Practice Group
Sometimes, being thorough as lawyers can create problems we didn't know we had.
General practitioners, as well as those of us who focus on employment law, frequently have a need to deal with employment related documents, generated by our business clients' situations, that we consider routine. There may be a tendency to consider these as situations calling for 'boiler plate' language; or, if we give them serious thought, we may be inclined to be extremely thorough in our wording, attempting to account for every possible contingency. Unfortunately, we can unintentionally run afoul of federal agencies which enforce the rights of employees - agencies which, some would argue, have been be more aggressive flexing their muscles in recent years. Here are three examples of which you should be aware.
Work Rules
Last year, Quicken Loans (a non-union employer) ended up with a complaint before the National Labor Relations Board1, stemming from boilerplate language in their employment agreements - clauses which must of us would think are fairly routine - and a routine non-compete dispute. Six mortgage bankers apparently left Quicken Loans and went to work for a competitor. Quicken Loans responded with a lawsuit alleging violations of clauses in their employment agreements. One of these employees countered with a complaint to the NLRB that language in their employment agreements violated her rights under federal labor law.
General practitioners, as well as those of us who focus on employment law, frequently have a need to deal with employment related documents, generated by our business clients' situations, that we consider routine. There may be a tendency to consider these as situations calling for 'boiler plate' language; or, if we give them serious thought, we may be inclined to be extremely thorough in our wording, attempting to account for every possible contingency. Unfortunately, we can unintentionally run afoul of federal agencies which enforce the rights of employees - agencies which, some would argue, have been be more aggressive flexing their muscles in recent years. Here are three examples of which you should be aware.
Work Rules
Last year, Quicken Loans (a non-union employer) ended up with a complaint before the National Labor Relations Board1, stemming from boilerplate language in their employment agreements - clauses which must of us would think are fairly routine - and a routine non-compete dispute. Six mortgage bankers apparently left Quicken Loans and went to work for a competitor. Quicken Loans responded with a lawsuit alleging violations of clauses in their employment agreements. One of these employees countered with a complaint to the NLRB that language in their employment agreements violated her rights under federal labor law.
Click here to read the rest of the article.
Share Article Via
