<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Kurker Law Group</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kurkerlaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com</link>
	<description>Employment Counseling and Litigation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 19:57:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Round 2 of CORI Reform</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/round-2-of-cori-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/round-2-of-cori-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:39:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cori]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Service]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=350</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Friday, May 4, 2012, the second round of the Criminal Offender Record Information (“CORI”) provisions become effective. The initial CORI requirements went into effect in August and November 2010. Click here to read a prior alert regarding the 2010 CORI requirements. Many employers perform CORI or “background checks” to determine whether an applicant for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/round-2-of-cori-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Extends Protection to Transgendered Employees</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-extends-protection-to-transgendered-employees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-extends-protection-to-transgendered-employees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:02:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ma"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transgendered transgender "gender identity" "transgender discrimination" "employment discrimination" "allyson kurker" "employment attorney massachusetts" "employment attorney concord]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 23, 2011, Governor Patrick signed a bill that protects transgendered individuals from discrimination in employment. “An Act Relative To Gender Identity,&#8221; makes Massachusetts the 16th state to extend protected class status to its 33,000 residents who identify as transgender. The law will become effective on July 1, 2012. The passage of this bill [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-extends-protection-to-transgendered-employees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MA High-Court Rules on Whether Employee Who Accepted Incentive-Based Layoff Is Entitled to Unemployment Benefits</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-rules-on-whether-employee-who-accepted-incentive-based-layoff-is-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-rules-on-whether-employee-who-accepted-incentive-based-layoff-is-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 02:02:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Connolly v. Dir. of Div. of Unemployment Assist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morillo v. Dir. Of the Div. of Employment Sec]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State St. Bank v. Deputy Dir. Of the Div. of Employment and Training]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unemployment benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White v. Dir. Of the Div. of Employment Sec.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=301</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 16, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) considered whether the plaintiff, a former employee of Verizon, was entitled to unemployment benefits even though she accepted an incentive-based voluntary termination package.   Connolly v. Dir. of Div. of Unemployment Assist. Affirming a decision by the district court, the SJC ruled that the former [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-rules-on-whether-employee-who-accepted-incentive-based-layoff-is-entitled-to-unemployment-benefits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Employers Can Host a Summer Party Without Getting Burned</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/how-employers-can-host-a-summer-party-without-getting-burned/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/how-employers-can-host-a-summer-party-without-getting-burned/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christmas parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concord ma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer sponsored event]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[holiday parties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lev v. Beverly Enterprises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middlesex county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[respondeat superior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual harassment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Memorial Day barbeques, Fourth of July fireworks, Labor Day soirees and many pub-crawls and Friday afternoon happy hours in between, the summer season offers employees and employers the opportunity to bond outside of the workplace.  While these events can serve to strengthen employment relationships and build morale, they also can be a hotbed for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/how-employers-can-host-a-summer-party-without-getting-burned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MA High Court Extends Retaliation Protection: Rules Company Retaliated Against Former Employee 2 Years Post-Employment</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-extends-retaliation-protection-rules-company-retaliated-against-former-employees-2-years-post-employment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-extends-retaliation-protection-rules-company-retaliated-against-former-employees-2-years-post-employment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 00:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[et al]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[et al. v. Klein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psy-Ed Corp.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=279</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 12, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (&#8220;SJC&#8221;) upheld a trial court ruling that an employer who filed a baseless lawsuit against a former employee, two years after that employee had filed a discrimination charge against the employer with the MCAD, violated the anti-retaliation provisions of Massachusetts General Law chapter 151B, §§4(4) and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/ma-high-court-extends-retaliation-protection-rules-company-retaliated-against-former-employees-2-years-post-employment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EEOC Issues Final Regulations Implementing the ADA Amendments Act</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/eeoc-issues-final-regulations-implementing-the-ada-amendments-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/eeoc-issues-final-regulations-implementing-the-ada-amendments-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADA regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADAAA regs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADAAA regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC ADAAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=266</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 25, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008.  These regulations, like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) itself, apply to employers with 15 or more employees. The purpose of the regulations, according to an EEOC press release, is to “simplify the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/eeoc-issues-final-regulations-implementing-the-ada-amendments-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1st Circuit Rules Employer Took Adequate Steps to Stop Harassment</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/1st-circuit-rules-employer-took-adequate-remedial-steps-to-stop-harassment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/1st-circuit-rules-employer-took-adequate-remedial-steps-to-stop-harassment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Mar 2011 00:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hostile work environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wilson v. Moulison North Corp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=255</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 21, 2011, the First Circuit provided useful guidance for employers responding to employee harassment allegations. Affirming a lower court decision, the First Circuit ruled that (1) employers have wide discretion in determining appropriate discipline in response to an initial complaint of harassment, and (2) an employer cannot be held liable for coworker harassment [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/1st-circuit-rules-employer-took-adequate-remedial-steps-to-stop-harassment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>At Your Fingertips: Massachusetts and Federal Employment Law Resources</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/at-your-fingertips-massachusetts-and-federal-employment-law-resources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/at-your-fingertips-massachusetts-and-federal-employment-law-resources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 20:09:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney general resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dol resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts employment law resources]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mcad resources]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you would like quick answers to your employment law questions &#8212; straight from the sources that implement the laws &#8212; look no further.  In this blog, I have assembled links to the most commonly accessed employment law resources, including: Massachusetts General Laws Federal Laws and Regulations Federal and State Agencies Enforcement Manuals Compliance Manuals [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/at-your-fingertips-massachusetts-and-federal-employment-law-resources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Highest Court Rules Employers May Not Deduct Property Damage Expenses from Employee Paychecks</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-highest-court-rules-employers-may-not-deduct-property-damage-expenses-from-employee-paychecks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-highest-court-rules-employers-may-not-deduct-property-damage-expenses-from-employee-paychecks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:43:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Attorney General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Camara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[set off]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[set-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undisputed loan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valid set-offs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wage Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 25, 2011, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) sided with the state’s Attorney General, ruling that the Wage Act prohibits employers from deducting wages from an employee’s paycheck to cover property damage caused by the employee.  Camara v. Attorney General, SJC-10693. Background ABC Disposal Service Inc. (“ABC”), which employs truck drivers to collect [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/massachusetts-highest-court-rules-employers-may-not-deduct-property-damage-expenses-from-employee-paychecks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rules Employer Search of Racy Text Messages Did Not Violate Employees&#8217; Privacy</title>
		<link>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-employer-search-of-racy-text-messages-did-not-violate-employee%e2%80%99s-privacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-employer-search-of-racy-text-messages-did-not-violate-employee%e2%80%99s-privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 17:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>allyson.kurker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allyson kurker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[city of ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company equipment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company issued equipment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kurker law group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overly intrusive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[text messages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kurkerlawgroup.com/?p=103</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In June, the Supreme Court ruled that a California police department did not violate a public employee’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure after the department reviewed sexually explicit text messages that an employee sent and received on a department-issued pager.  City of Ontario, California, et al. v. Quon, et [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.kurkerlaw.com/blog/supreme-court-rules-employer-search-of-racy-text-messages-did-not-violate-employee%e2%80%99s-privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

