Under Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 229 Va. 534, ​​331 S.E.2d 797 (1985), an at-will employee in Virginia may bring a common law claim of wrongful discharge if the employee’s termination violates Virginia’s public policy. While these types of claims are a “narrow” exception to the general rule of employment at-will, they may provide...Read More

In Mitchell v. Kentucky Finance Co., 359 U.S. 290 (1959) the Supreme Court held that the business of making personal loans to individuals does not constitute “sales of . . . services” by a “retail or service establishment,” within the meaning of the retail and service establishment exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This...Read More

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), stands for the principle that sovereign immunity does not prevent people harmed by state agencies acting in violation of federal law from suing the officials in charge of the agencies in their individual capacity for injunctive relief. In the employment context, this principle...Read More

The Virginia Employment Records Law (“VERL”), VA Code § 8.01-413.1, requires employers to provide employees upon request with copies of all records reflecting the employee’s wages or salary during their employment, and certain other categories of records. The law is important because, inter alia, it gives employees the right to obtain information showing how they...Read More

The Virginia Pay Transparency Law (“VPTL”), VA Code § 40.1-28.7:9, prohibits an employer from discharging or taking other retaliatory action against employees for discussing their pay or any other employees’ pay. The law is important because protecting employees’ right to discuss their compensation makes it easier for employees to negotiate for better pay and to...Read More

In Fed. Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389, 128 S. Ct. 1147 (2008), the Supreme Court held that for an employee’s filing with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to be deemed a “charge” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial...Read More

In Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 120 S. Ct. 631 (2000), the Supreme Court held that although the Age Discrimination in Employment Act contains a clear statement of Congress’ intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, that abrogation exceeded Congress’ authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, under Kimel,...Read More

The North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (NCREDA) prohibits employers from retaliating against or penalizing employees for engaging in certain protected activities. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-240 to 95-245. In general, the activities protected by NCREDA involve employees in good faith taking action or threatening to take action under certain North Carolina worker’s rights...Read More

In Coleman v. Ct. of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30, 132 S.Ct. 1327 (2012), the Supreme Court held that Congress did not validly abrogate States’ sovereign immunity from suits for money damages in enacting FMLA’s self-care provision. Consequently, State employees are not able to sue their State employers for money damages arising from violations...Read More

North Carolina’s Lawful Use of Lawful Products Statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 95-28.2, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees for lawfully using lawful products during non-working hours.  The law was likely originally enacted to prevent employers from trying to forbid tobacco or alcohol use by employees outside of working hours. In light of the...Read More