HomePrintSaveEmail
Brian Murphy Law Firm PC
864-370-9400
Employment Law
Practical Advice
Consultation With Brian Murphy
Attorney Profile
Resource Links
Contact Us & Location

Office Location:

514 Pettigru Street
Greenville, South Carolina 29601

Tel: 864-370-9400
Fax: 864-241-1386


Employment Law News & Resources

Wrongful Discharge • Discrimination • Sexual harassment • Wage issues • Contracts Family, Health, and Leave issues • Competing with current and former employers

News

[03/09] Senate to take up unemployment insurance extension
[03/08] Allergan CEO got $11.1M in compensation in 2009
[03/08] Court will decide if NASA checks can continue

More...

Articles

Noncompete Agreements

Covenants not to compete, or noncompete agreements, are fairly commonplace in employment contracts. The purpose of the agreement is to protect the employer's business interests, trade secrets and other confidential and proprietary information should the employment relationship end. For example, physician contracts often include noncompete agreements that prevent the doctor from taking clients with him or her or working for a competing physician group within a specific geographic range.

More...

What is the Difference Between Overtime Pay and Compensatory Time?

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers are required to pay covered, nonexempt employees overtime pay at the rate of one and half times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked over 40 hours within a seven day period. The FLSA also provides:

More...


Frequently Asked Questions

More...

Case Summaries

[03/09] Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch.
In an employment discrimination and retaliation action brought by a teacher at a religious school claiming violations of the ADA, the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the "ministerial exception" is vacated and remanded as, given the factual findings relating to plaintiff's primary duties as a teacher, the district court erred in its legal conclusion classifying her as a ministerial employee.

[03/08] McBeth v. Himes
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising out of an investigation by the sheriff's office and the Colorado Department of Human Services that resulted in plaintiff surrendering her license to run a daycare facility in Colorado, partial summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant-officials is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her license before any suspension proceedings could take place; and 2) defendants made a prima facie showing that they acted objectively reasonably when they sought suspension of plaintiff's daycare license. However, the order is reversed in part where plaintiff failed to allege and prove that the state officials lacked cause to seek suspension of her license.

[03/05] Rhine v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am.
In a petition for review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board under 33 U.S.C. section 921(c) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, the petition is denied where: 1) a reasonable mind could have concluded that the Pacific Maritime Association Average adequately represented petitioner's annual earning capacity; and 2) the availability of alternative employment was determined by reference to two criteria: the claimant's physical abilities and the economic availability of particular jobs in the market.

[03/05] Quasius v. Schwan Food Co.
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to file a motion to withdraw his dispositive admissions after the district court provided ample notice and opportunity to do so.

[03/04] Smith v. Adventist Health Sys.
In plaintiff's action against defendant-hospital group seeking a preliminary injunction for rejecting his application for hospital privileges and medical staff membership at defendant's hospital, judgment granting the injunction and restoring his privileges is affirmed and the court did not err when it: 1) impliedly found that a statutorily required injunction bond had been waived or forfeited; 2) expressly found that plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits; and 3) balanced the likely interim harm to the parties of granting or denying the preliminary injunction.

[03/04] Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro
In plaintiff's action against his employer, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) and several PREPA officials, claiming that the new Popular Democratic Party (PDP) regime discriminated against him because he was a member of the New Progressive Party (NPP), judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) under Branti v, Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980), and its progeny, the position of administrator is not within First Amendment protection because it is a policy position; 2) political discrimination and retaliation claims under the First Amendment cannot be restated as claims under the Equal Protection Clause; and 3) plaintiff did not state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act because he did not allege he was involved in FLSA-protected activity.

[03/04] Roche v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.
Decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a case brought by a former FAA employer who was terminated from his position as an Air Traffic Control Specialist for sexual harassment is affirmed as the Board did not err in finding that it may hear FAA removal appeals only from Title 5-qualifying employees.

[03/04] Budde v. Kane County Forest Pres.
In a police chief's action against his former employer claiming discrimination based on his disability of alcoholism, in violation of the ADA, summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) the employer terminated the plaintiff because of his misconduct, not due to discrimination; 2) plaintiff was not "qualified" to perform his job as police chief based on his failure to comply with workplace rules and his inability to operate a vehicle; and 3) plaintiff's claims for failure to accommodate his alcoholism and retaliation for seeking an accommodation are without merit.

More...

Brian Murphy Law Firm, PC

Employment law attorneys serving upstate South Carolina employees since 1996
Including the communities of Greenville, Greer, Taylors, Spartanburg, Mauldin,
Simpsonville, and Easley
Greenville County • Pickens County • Anderson County • Spartanburg County • Laurens County

 
© 2005 Brian Murphy Law Firm PC. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map