Schroeder Quoted on Recent Second Circuit Ruling Over Firing an Offensive Employee
17 May 2017
Partner Don Schroeder was quoted in a Law360 article, “4 Boxes To Check Before Firing an Offensive Employee,” covering the Second Circuit’s ruling that it was wrong for catering company Pier Sixty LLC to fire a server who had posted a profane rant about his boss and the boss’ family on Facebook.
Schroeder explained, “[A] cardinal rule of the union election time period is the laboratory conditions in and around an election, and the scrutiny that is attached to anybody subjected to disciplinary action.”
He also notes that because of the complexities of union protections, “this case was a special circumstance as even the Second Circuit said it was a ‘close call.’”
Schroeder explained, “[A] cardinal rule of the union election time period is the laboratory conditions in and around an election, and the scrutiny that is attached to anybody subjected to disciplinary action.”
He also notes that because of the complexities of union protections, “this case was a special circumstance as even the Second Circuit said it was a ‘close call.’”
People
Related News
25 July 2024
In the News
Donald Schroeder on Groff – ‘Supreme Court decision is inviting a more fact-based analysis’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Donald Schroeder assessed the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in a religious accommodation case as it returns to the district court in the Law360 article, “A Year After High Court Spotlight, Groff Case Still A Bellwether.”
24 July 2024
In the News
Louis Lehot Featured in Q&A on How Startups Can Prepare for IPO
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Louis Lehot features in the Q&A, "How startups can get in top shape for an IPO, according to Silicon Valley lawyer Louis Lehot," part of Business Insider's Road to IPO' series.
24 July 2024
In the News
Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Patent Cap in Drug Pricing – ‘Hard to predict if this will make a difference’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Courtenay Brinckerhoff discussed a recent bill passed in the U.S. Senate aimed at lowering drug prices by limiting the number of patents that can be asserted in cases over biosimilars in the Law360 article, “Patent Cap In Drug Pricing Bill Seen As Having Muted Effect.”