The U.S. Women’s National Team did not lose a match in route to their fourth World Cup title. When they returned home, the nation celebrated the team’s victory with numerous national TV appearances and a ticker tape parade. However, while the team reveled in victory, one battle stood ahead — not on the field, but in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
On April 3, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed Senate Enrolled Act 231, excluding a direct seller from the definition of “employee” under the state’s minimum wage law (Indiana Code § 22-2-2 et. seq.) and from the definition of “employment” under the state’s unemployment compensation system (I.C. 22-4 et. seq.), except under certain conditions. The law took effect July 1.
This year, a group of unions, employment law attorneys and other labor organizations petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban noncompete agreements. But while there are some instances where a restrictive covenant can be too restrictive, experts say there are also instances where noncompete clauses are legitimate.
A former East Chicago city employee who has alleged her constitutional rights were violated when she was fired from the city Health Department in 2015 has secured a partial victory from the Northern Indiana District Court, which also ruled partially in favor of city officials.
The leader of the Indiana National Guard is resigning days after a former contract worker accused him of retaliating against her for reporting his alleged affair with a subordinate.
A man who claims he was fired from his employment with the city of Terre Haute for defending a co-worker partially defeated a motion for summary judgment, with a judge finding the man’s claims of negligent supervision and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act can proceed.