In today’s digital environment, it is crucial that employers act fast when faced with a suit (or the threat of suit) by an employee or ex-employee. When potential litigation is on the horizon, the first step should always be to contact legal counsel. The next step should protecting documentation that might be relevant to the dispute. Keep in mind this acronym to make sure you are following that right steps for documentation preservation:

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks, [1]centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth.

Dealing with employees who abuse FMLA can be difficult. Letting abuse run rampant, however, can impact business productivity and put a damper on company morale (as present employees often have to pick up the slack of someone on leave). Employers who detect abuse must proceed with caution because it is very easy to run afoul of regulations.

When Miami Dolphins player Jonathan Martin made allegations that veteran teammate Richie Incognito had bullied and hazed him so badly that he had no choice but to leave the team, the NFL was collectively stunned. Bullying in professional football? Can such a thing exist?

Serving on a jury is one of the most important civic duties that a citizen can fulfill. For employers, however, having employees miss days or weeks at a time to sit on a jury can a mean a lag in productivity. If an essential employee is summoned for service it may be tempting for the employer to persuade him or her to find a way out of participating. As an attorney, I have often heard jurors attempt to skirt their duty by saying, “You Honor, I cannot miss work.”

Inappropriate Facebook posts, pictures and the like have led to many firings in recent years. A large number of employees have become smarter on social media and made a concerted effort to not “friend” a manager or boss. They think that they are keeping their online persona and work reputation separate…but is that really possible when dealing with the Internet?

As summer draws to an end, flu season is lurking right around the corner. Last year’s flu season was especially hard-hitting. Many employers have taken proactive steps in recent years to protect their workforce by offering free flu vaccines or encouraging employees to get one on their own. But, can employers go one step further and require their at-will employees to receive flu shots?

GINA is not a who, but rather a what. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) was passed by Congress in 2008. GINA makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of genetic information. Employers cannot lawfully inquire about (1) an individual’s genetic tests; (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family members; or, (3) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of such an individual.

Perhaps you consider your non-compete agreement just one form in a stack of many? When it is time to use it there is not much to the process: you retrieve it from the HR office, briefly discuss it with the employee, and he willingly signs it. But such a practice is a perilous one because non-compete agreements are not meant to be “one-size-fits-all.” Rather, they should be thoughtfully tweaked to each specific employee and situation. By relying on boilerplate language and fill-in-the-blank forms, you are risking the chance that a court will find your agreement unenforceable.

The United States Supreme Court just issued two very important employment-related rulings and both of the decisions are big wins for employers. Today, let’s take a look at the first case: Vance v. Ball State University (decided June 24, 2013), which centered on employers’ liability for workplace harassment.