<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Labor &amp; Employment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/labor-employment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:39:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Public Employees – Civil Rights – Failure to Promote – Gender Discrimination&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-public-employees-civil-rights-failure-to-promote-gender-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-public-employees-civil-rights-failure-to-promote-gender-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Farm Service Agency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73821</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Pope v. Vilsack </em>  A plaintiff who lost her bid to become the USDA Farm Service Agency’s County Executive Director for Caswell County survives summary judgment as to her claim of gender discrimination based on evidence of staff gossip, the Farmer County Committee’s reluctance to hire a woman for the position, and the Committee’s more favorable interview-process treatment of the successful male candidate.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-public-employees-civil-rights-failure-to-promote-gender-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; AWPA – U.S. Workers – Terms of Employment – First Impression &#8212; Posting Requirement &#8212; Title VII&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-awpa-u-s-workers-terms-of-employment-first-impression-posting-requirement-title/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-awpa-u-s-workers-terms-of-employment-first-impression-posting-requirement-title/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:22:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Worker Protection Act.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Fulford v. Daughtry </em>  Even though defendants fired at least one American worker for failing to meet a production standard, this does not mean it was misleading when the clearance order that defendants filed with the U.S. Department of Labor said only that employees were required to “keep up with fellow workers.” ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/12/labor-employment-awpa-u-s-workers-terms-of-employment-first-impression-posting-requirement-title/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Preemption – NLRA – Tort/Negligence – Statute of Limitations – Rule 41 Relation Back – Unfair Trade Practices&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/labor-employment-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-preemption-nlra-tortnegligence-statute-of-limitations-rule-41-relation/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/labor-employment-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-preemption-nlra-tortnegligence-statute-of-limitations-rule-41-relation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:58:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor practice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Barbee v. Transit Management of Charlotte, Inc.</em> Plaintiff alleges that he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for filing grievances under a collective bargaining agreement and for filing an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/10/labor-employment-civil-practice-subject-matter-jurisdiction-preemption-nlra-tortnegligence-statute-of-limitations-rule-41-relation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Hospital Policy Protects in Title VII Harassment Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/labor-employment-hospital-policy-protects-in-title-vii-harassment-case/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/labor-employment-hospital-policy-protects-in-title-vii-harassment-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:40:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HIPAA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73689</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Crockett v. Mission Hospital Inc.</em>  The 4th Circuit affirms summary judgment for defendant hospital in a Title VII suit filed by a female radiologic technologist because the hospital had communicated its anti-harassment policy to hospital personnel and promptly attempted to investigate plaintiff’s unspecified claim of “horrific” conduct by her male supervisor; despite plaintiff’s complaint that the supervisor had required her to raise her shirt to show she was not wearing a wire, sat with his knees outside hers and asked for a kiss, she was terminated after repeated warnings about improper cell phone use at work and because she violated HIPAA by surreptitiously recording patients.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/labor-employment-hospital-policy-protects-in-title-vii-harassment-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; ERISA Plan Covers Drunken Driver Death&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/labor-employment-erisa-plan-covers-drunken-driver-death/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/labor-employment-erisa-plan-covers-drunken-driver-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 16:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judgment awarding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Johnson v. American United Life Ins. Co. </em>  Because an employee’s ERISA plan does not define “accident” for coverage of accidental death and dismemberment benefits, the 4th Circuit construes the plan in favor of coverage and says the widow of an employee with a .289 blood alcohol content who died in a one-vehicle accident is entitled to coverage for both AD&#38;D benefits and life insurance under the employer’s ERISA plan.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/31/labor-employment-erisa-plan-covers-drunken-driver-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; No ADA Claim from Leave Denial&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 13:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chapter 13 bankruptcy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73311</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Wilson v. Dollar General Corp. </em>  An employee of a chain-store distribution center who filed his disability discrimination claim with the EEOC before he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition has standing to pursue his discrimination claim, the 4th Circuit says, but the claim has no merit as the employee did not show he could perform the essential functions of his job had he been granted a brief additional leave for treatment of his vision impairment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/labor-employment-no-ada-claim-from-leave-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Public Employees – Whistleblower Act – County Board of Elections&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/labor-employment-public-employees-whistleblower-act-county-board-of-elections/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/labor-employment-public-employees-whistleblower-act-county-board-of-elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:22:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whistleblower Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Johnson v. Forsyth County </em> G.S. Chapter 126, including the N.C. Whistleblower Act, applies only to state employees and the local employees listed in G.S. § 126-5. Since county board of election employees are not included in the § 126-5 list, they are not covered by the Whistleblower Act.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/labor-employment-public-employees-whistleblower-act-county-board-of-elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Contract – Covenant Not to Compete – Physician – Medical Practice – Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction – Likelihood of Success – Irreparable Harm&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/labor-employment-contract-covenant-not-to-compete-physician-medical-practice-civil-practice-preliminary-injunction-likelihood-of-suc/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/labor-employment-contract-covenant-not-to-compete-physician-medical-practice-civil-practice-preliminary-injunction-likelihood-of-suc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 16:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ericahampton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[challenge findings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73098</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Pinehurst Surgical Clinic, P.A. v. DiMichele-Manes </em> The plaintiff-medical practice has shown that the non-compete covenant in the parties’ employment agreement was valid and enforceable and that the defendant-doctor violated the covenant by going to work for a nearby competitor; therefore, plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its case.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/15/labor-employment-contract-covenant-not-to-compete-physician-medical-practice-civil-practice-preliminary-injunction-likelihood-of-suc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; City Worker’s USERRA Claim Too Late&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/labor-employment-city-workers-userra-claim-too-late/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/labor-employment-city-workers-userra-claim-too-late/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 20:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reemployment Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>A chief warrant officer in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserves, who left his job as a municipal waste manager for periods of active service with the Coast Guard, waited too long to file his suit under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and the 4th Circuit affirms the district court decision that the suit is barred by the four-year federal “catchall” statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/09/labor-employment-city-workers-userra-claim-too-late/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Labor &amp; Employment &#8211; Public Employees &#8212; Municipal – State Constitutional Claims – Tort/Negligence – Wrongful Discharge – Public Policy&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/labor-employment-public-employees-municipal-state-constitutional-claims-tortnegligence-wrongful-discharge-public-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/labor-employment-public-employees-municipal-state-constitutional-claims-tortnegligence-wrongful-discharge-public-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 18:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Labor & Employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public officials]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill</em>  North Carolina does not recognize direct constitutional claims against public officials acting in their individual capacities]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/05/07/labor-employment-public-employees-municipal-state-constitutional-claims-tortnegligence-wrongful-discharge-public-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
