Building a business and a brand can be extremely fulfilling for an entrepreneur. In Miami and across the United States, a great idea, an engaging personality, hard work, and a little luck can create a recipe for success. Becoming a well-known and financially successful employer, however, can create problems of its own. There are employees who may be tempted to file commercial litigation or an employment discrimination lawsuit in hopes of obtaining a monetary windfall.
Business owners in the state of Florida are in it for the profits. Now, this may seem blunt, but it's a wholehearted truth. No one ever goes in to business just for the sake of doing it; gaining profits is always the end goal, otherwise, what's the point? And although most employers hate to have to let employees go, sometimes circumstances require a stronger stance than others.
A case out of Iowa this month reminds many employers here in Florida just how thin of a line they walk when they fire employees of the opposite sex, even if their reasoning is backed by the law.
Defendants in the case of Tasini v. AOL Inc breathed a sigh of relief this month when a court of appeals judge rejected an appeal from a group of bloggers who claimed that they were owed payment for services rendered.
You'd be hard pressed to find a person in Florida who hasn't heard of Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Many people may not know however that these franchise restaurants are owned by the umbrella company Darden Restaurants Inc.
It's always good when an employer works hard to implement a solid working environment. If a company has had a history of employment discrimination, the best thing that the business can do is work on a positive, discriminatory-free future. That was the case in a recent story, which dates back to 2010.
Florida attorneys know that an entire case can turn on a simple word. Sometimes, the interpretation of phrase can greatly influence how a specific law is interpreted. In recent news, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the following issue, which concerns an issue of interpretation: Should employers be liable for their supervisors' harassment only when the supervisor oversees the employee, or must the supervisor have the authority to hire and fire the employee? All of this depends on one's definition of "supervisor."