Tennessee has long made a distinction between on-premises and off-premises commercial signs in sign regulations. In general, on-premise signs (those that advertise or point to a good or service provided on the same site as the sign) are less regulated than off-premises advertising signs. This may come to an end. The Western District of Tennessee declared the state law unconstitutional in March 2017, applying strict scrutiny to the law, because it is a content-based regulation, and the speech at issue is not necessarily commercial. Commercial speech (primarily advertising) has less protection than non-commercial speech (which could include public service announcements,

Russell Adkins   Tennessee’s workers compensation laws require an employer to offer injured employees with a panel of three or more physicians. An injured employee has the option to select one of those physicians to provide treatment. If the selected physician orders referral to a specialist, the employer is deemed to have accepted the referral unless the employer provides the employee with a panel of three specialists within three business days. In the recent case of Ducros v. Metro Roofing and Metal Supply Co., Inc., et al, an employer’s failure to follow proper procedure brought about unintended consequences. Ducros was working as a

Robert Arrington[1] Many employers now have company sponsored employee dispute resolution plans, in which all employees are required to agree to submit employment disputes to binding arbitration. Most such agreements prohibit employees from filing class actions. For the past several years, these provisions have been under attack from the National Labor Relations Board. It appears this controversy may soon be resolved. The manner in which it will be resolved is important because many employers who now maintain such plans will not continue to do so if class claims cannot be waived. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“the NLRA”), 29

In a recent decision, the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered whether a civil action brought by an employee following a sexual assault and robbery on the job should be exclusively remedied under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act.   In the case of Jane Doe, et al. v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., et al, an employee of P.F. Chang’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) sued the popular restaurant chain for an incident that occurred during her shift on September 12, 2010.  Tenn. Ct. App. 2017 (W2016-01817-COA-R9-CV).  Plaintiff was working as the restaurant’s hospitality manager that night, and locked herself in the restaurant’s office around midnight

There are now two camps when it comes to whether Title VII prohibits discrimination based solely on sexual orientation. In one camp, the EEOC and, most recently, the Seventh Circuit say discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.  The other camp, including the Sixth Circuit, in which Tennessee resides, and the Fourth Circuit, in which Virginia resides, says it is not. In December 2016, the Sixth Circuit held in Clemons v. City of Memphis that Title VII did not prohibit claims based solely on sexual orientation.  However, the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Vickers v.

More detailed reporting will now be required for both employers and their attorneys related to an employer’s “persuader” activities (See 29 C.F.R. Parts 405 and 406).  “Persuader activities” are defined as “any actions, conduct, or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights.”  Form LM-10 Employer and Form LM-20 Consultant Persuader Reporting under the LMRDA, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards Jul. 1, 2016, available at (https://www.dol.gov/olms/regs/ compliance/ecr.htm#ecr).   As anticipated, the Department of Labor published revisions to the persuader reporting

            The Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a final rule effective December 1, 2016 raising the minimum salary level of exempt employees classified as executive, administrative and professional (“white collar”) from $23,660 per year to $47,476 or $455 a week to $913 per week, and the minimum salary for “highly compensated” employees who are exempt from the overtime requirement almost regardless of their duties from $100,000 to $134,004. Salaried white collar employees paid below the updated salary levels are now generally entitled to overtime pay. However, there are a number of exceptions to the salary standards for overtime that

The Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor provided recent guidance in determining classification of workers.  The WHD says a business "'suffers or permits' an individual to work if, as a matter of economic reality, the individual is dependent on the entity."  The factors of the economic reality test include: (a) the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; (b) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill; (c) the extent of the relative investments of the employer and the worker; (d) whether the work performed requires special skills

The Legislature has significantly revised the Workers’ Compensation Law. New rules apply to employees injured on or after July 1, 2014. The new law generally reduces potential benefits and makes it more difficult for employees to establish a right to benefits. Trial Courts no longer have any involvement with workers’ compensation cases. All claims are now handled by a newly created Division of Workers’ Compensation. There are procedures for assisting employees to obtain benefits and mediation of all disputes is required. A special court system composed of workers’ compensation judges handles disputed matters and appeals. Only in rare cases can