Case Brief

The main features of legislation relating to contracts of employment are outlined in the terms and conditions within a contract of employment. Information about this is included in the handbook for the NJC currently known as the Green Book. Contracts help to protect the rights and responsibilities of both the employer and the employee. Contracts must contain general information about the employee and the employment in which they have been employed: this includes information on the employee's name, date of commencement of employment, position appointed ,employment conditions, rights and responsibilities of the employee, expected duties and information on grade and point scale in relation to pay. Employees are expected by law to follow the terms set out in their contract until employment is terminated by either party.

formal policies and procedures and agreed ways of working; these are bound by contracts of employment and have codes of

At 14:32 Haring was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was taken away for booking and a Data Master Breathalyzer test.

Sylvia Burwell Secretary of Health and Human Services Petitioners vs Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation vs Secretary of Health and Human Services (U.S 2014)

1. NON-COMPETE COVENANT. During employment and for a period of 2 years after initial day of employment at Saving American Hearts LLC, and after the separation of employment for any reason,____________________ will not directly or indirectly engage in any buisness with the following competitor(s):

Restrictive Covenants: It refers to the ability to impose restrictions on an employee by an employer regarding what he cannot do during and after his course of employment. Three types of restrictive covenants are: 1. Non-disclosure clauses prevent former employees from using and disclosing confidential information relating to the employer. 2. Non-solicitation clauses prevent former employees from attracting customers, clients and sometimes employees of employer. 3. Non-competition clause prevent former employees from competing with employer after his employment for a specific period. These clauses are vital to add into contract in order to improve its value.

In determining its jurisdiction, the Court found that Allstate was not “present’ in the State, and that did not have “minimum contacts” with the forum because it was a foreign corporation that did not reside in the State, and because the contract in which the cause of action was based was entered by the parties in the State of Tennessee. As result, the Court’s arrived to the conclusion that its personal jurisdiction over the Defendant was not justified and didn’t meet the standard of due process. It is our opinion that the trial Court incorrectly applied the “Long Arm Statute (LAS).” The same only applies to individuals or corporations who were no present in the State at the time the cause of action occurred, and in consequence it has to be served of process out of state. As established by Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877), every state possesses exclusive jurisdiction over persons and property in its territory within the limits imposed by the due process. In order to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant the same has to be present in the State (nexus), and has to be served (notice) while in the State. There is evidence in this case that Allstate was present in the State of Georgia at the time of the cause of

Area of Concern #1: In several case files, and across local offices, the federal review team noted instances of data entry that took place two months or longer after the actual activity.

Given the long-arm statute, does the Tennessee state or federal court have proper personal jurisdiction over Wal-Mart and Smith Family Farms?

These legislative standards provide a baseline that employers and employees cannot contract out of. A provision of an employment contract that provides for less generous treatment than that provided by applicable employment standards legislation will be unenforceable. The common law may entitle employees to more generous treatment than that provided under applicable

Key Facts: Plaintiff and defendants went on a hunting trip. Plaintiff explained them safety rules and instructed them to be careful when shooting. However, while hunting, defendants fired in Plaintiff direction, injuring him in his right eye and face. It was unknown which pellet was fired by who. The plaintiff brought suit for negligence against both defendants.

Bennet-Alexander, Dawn D., Hartman, Laura P. (2003) Employment Law for Business, 4th edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies

Mr. Jeffrey Skilling was one of three executives at Enron Corporation that were indicted for manipulating financials to show the public inflated numbers about Enron’s profitability. By showing these numbers to the public they were trying to mislead the public into thinking the company was more profitable than it really was. Mr. Jeffrey Skilling was convicted by a Texas federal district court of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false representations to auditors, and insider trading. Mr. Skilling had been the C.E.O. of Enron Corp. Mr. Skilling appealed, he argued he was prosecuted by the government under an invalid legal theory and that the jury he had was biased.

No compete clauses are not pervasive in public or private industry but they often exist in situations and with people where trade secrets and other sensitive information is potentially at risk. Employers do so to protect themselves but many states and territories around the world either highly restrict them or outright ban them from even being implemented due to it ostensibly being unfair or punitive to the employee. The author of this paper is asked to focus on a fictional situation involving a non-compete clause and is asked to answer several different questions. The elements of a non-compete clause that must be present are to be explained as well as a number of related concepts including offer, acceptance, capacity and so on. The author is asked whether common law or UCC applies to non-compete agreements and what part(s) of the agreement would make the aforementioned fictitious agreement unenforceable.

The decision in the case focuses on a request by a large and powerful franchisee to eliminate the salad bar in a downtown Roy Rogers location. This decision seems