Posts in Whistleblower Protection Act.
Uninformed employer decisions in whistleblower actions among the most treacherous and difficult to defend in court.
Comments
Employee fails to establish her intentional infliction of emotional distress tort and whistleblower claims because employer had a solid strategy.
Court rules licensed attorney is a member of a “public body” for purposes of protecting employee under Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act.
Subscribe
RSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
Topics
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Title VII
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Employment Liability
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- Employment Discrimination
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Minimum Wage
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Transgender Issues
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Employment Agreement
- Hostile Work Environment
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Contracts
- Workplace Harassment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Cannabis
- Medical Marijuana
- ERISA
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Lessons Learned – Part Two – Punitive Damages
- Lessons Learned Series - Part One - No-fault Attendance Policies
- DOL Gets Granular on Rounding of Employees’ Time
- Federal Appellate Court Finds Potential USERRA Violations
- Employers Must File EEO-1 Survey with Pay Data by Sept. 30
- Adopt and Amend? Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Paid Medical Leave, Improved Workforce Opportunity Acts
- New ADA Case Is Great For Employers
- Michigan Legislature Challenges its Own Lame Duck Amendments to Paid Sick Time, Minimum Wage Rate Laws
- Supreme Court Rules EEOC Charge not Jurisdictional Requirement for Bringing Civil Rights Claims in Federal Court
- Causal Connection between Protected Activity and Adverse Action Supported By Employer’s ‘Good Deed’