Appeals, Hiring & Firing, Employee Definition

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Remote Employee Who Did Not Reside or Work in Minnesota Is Not Protected by the Minnesota...

Ballard Spahr LLP on 4/15/2025

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently issued a decision in Kuklenski v. Medtronic USA, Inc., No. 24-1310 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2025), finding that the definition of “employee” in...more

Ontario, Canada: Calculation of Reasonable Notice Period When a Contractor Becomes an Employee

Littler on 2/26/2020

Cormier v. 1772887 Ontario Limited (St. Joseph Communications) (“St. Joseph”), 2019 ONCA 965, is an appeal from a summary judgment motion arising from the wrongful dismissal claim of a contractor who worked for St. Joseph for...more

The ABC Test: California States and Localities Support Plaintiffs’ Appeal, Signal Aggressive Enforcement

Littler on 11/19/2019

The fight over the scope of the “ABC test” for determining the status of workers under California state law continues unabated. A series of court filings last week suggests that state and local officials may be gearing up to...more

California Appellate Court Applies Dynamex Retroactively

FordHarrison on 10/16/2019

For a little over a year, California employers and courts have been wrestling with the impact of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018), which dramatically altered the independent contractor...more

Employment Defense: Workforce Classification

Lewitt Hackman on 6/6/2019

The analysis of whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of California’s Wage Orders became more restrictive in 2018 following the California Supreme Court’s adoption of the “ABC” test in the...more

Ninth Circuit: Dynamex "ABC" Test Unquestionably Applies Retroactively

Holland & Knight LLP on 5/6/2019

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Vazquez et al. v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int'l., Inc., No. 17-16096 (Jan-Pro) on May 2, 2019, holding that the recently adopted, three-pronged...more

Non-Compete News: Georgia Court of Appeals Clarifies Definition of "Key Employee" Under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act

FordHarrison on 3/14/2019

The Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act (O.C.G.A. § 13-8-50 et seq.) governs non-compete agreements in Georgia entered into after May 2011 and sets forth that such agreements can be used only with respect to certain employees. ...more

Appeals › Hiring & Firing › Employee Definition

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Remote Employee Who Did Not Reside or Work in Minnesota Is Not Protected by the Minnesota...

Ontario, Canada: Calculation of Reasonable Notice Period When a Contractor Becomes an Employee

The ABC Test: California States and Localities Support Plaintiffs’ Appeal, Signal Aggressive Enforcement

California Appellate Court Applies Dynamex Retroactively

Employment Defense: Workforce Classification

Ninth Circuit: Dynamex "ABC" Test Unquestionably Applies Retroactively

Non-Compete News: Georgia Court of Appeals Clarifies Definition of "Key Employee" Under the Georgia Restrictive Covenants Act

4 Things You Need To Know About Grubhub Plaintiff’s Reply Brief

Supershuttle Transports Independent Contractor Status into the Spotlight

Back to the Future (Again): NLRB Returns to Traditional Independent Contractor Test

Job Applicant Denied Whistleblower Protection in Sixth Circuit

Flash No. 42 FedEx Ground Drivers Found to be Employees: A Sequel To Ruiz

Appeals › Hiring & Firing › Employee Definition

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"