<?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>Legal Bites &#187; Industry News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/category/industry-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites</link>
	<description>A blog by the NK+M Food &#38; Hospitality Group</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:01:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>First Circuit Upholds Jury Finding of Retaliation under the ADEA</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/02/first-circuit-upholds-jury-finding-of-retaliation-under-the-adea/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/02/first-circuit-upholds-jury-finding-of-retaliation-under-the-adea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law/Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Age Discrimination in Employment Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Causal Connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judgment as a Matter of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonnell Douglas Framework]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prima Facie Case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Circuit recently refused to overturn a jury’s finding of retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) despite the defendant’s claims that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case.  In Munoz v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Muto Y Beneficiencia De Puerto Rico, the Plaintiff was a cardiologist who was terminated by the defendant-Hospital one day after the Plaintiff was deposed in a lawsuit against the hospital for age discrimination.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/02/first-circuit-upholds-jury-finding-of-retaliation-under-the-adea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Private Sector Workplace Bias Charges Break Record Again</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/private-sector-workplace-bias-charges-break-record-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/private-sector-workplace-bias-charges-break-record-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:14:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal trends]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/private-sector-workplace-bias-charges-break-record-again/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the second year in a row, there were a record number of private sector discrimination claims lodged in the EEOC in 2011, breaking the record set in 2010 by a small margin.  The EEOC also announced that relief to workers in the form of settlements and as a result of litigation exceeded $455 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/private-sector-workplace-bias-charges-break-record-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Announces Pilot Program to Prevent Seafood Mislabeling</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/massachusetts-announces-pilot-program-to-prevent-seafood-mislabeling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/massachusetts-announces-pilot-program-to-prevent-seafood-mislabeling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Globe Seafood Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA Testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fish Barcodes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seafood Mislabeling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trace-Back Procedures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=608</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the Department of Fish and Games Division of Marine Fisheries recently announced that they are considering using DNA testing to prevent fish mislabeling and are launching a pilot program in partnership with Legal Sea Foods that would trace seafood using barcodes.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2012/01/massachusetts-announces-pilot-program-to-prevent-seafood-mislabeling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2012 Brings In Transgender Equal Rights in Massachusetts</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/2012-brings-in-transgender-equal-rights-in-massachusetts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/2012-brings-in-transgender-equal-rights-in-massachusetts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:21:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=601</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed a new transgender equal rights bill, making Massachusetts the sixteenth state to prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.  The bill goes into effect on July 12, 2012.
The bill prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in the areas of employment, education, housing, and credit.  It also categorizes violence against [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/2012-brings-in-transgender-equal-rights-in-massachusetts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employer Benefits when Plaintiff’s Lawyer Misses Filing Deadline Due to Holiday Rush</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/employer-benefits-when-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-lawyer-misses-filing-deadline-due-to-holiday-rush/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/employer-benefits-when-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-lawyer-misses-filing-deadline-due-to-holiday-rush/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:10:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Farris v. Shineski, the plaintiff, a former employee of the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (“the VA”), claimed that the VA discriminated against her based on disability when it terminated her employment.  She originally complained to the VA’s EEO counselor.   She then underwent an unsuccessful formal mediation through the VA’s Office of Resolution Management.  After [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/employer-benefits-when-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-lawyer-misses-filing-deadline-due-to-holiday-rush/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Law Protects Whistleblowing, Not Blackmail</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/the-law-protects-whistleblowing-not-blackmail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/the-law-protects-whistleblowing-not-blackmail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:09:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Ingalls, a long time store manager for Walgreens, thought he was untouchable because he had the goods on his employer.  In 2006, the roof of a Walgreens store partially collapsed during a rain storm.  Mr. Ingalls claims that his district manager asked him to transfer inventory from that store to other stores for sale [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/the-law-protects-whistleblowing-not-blackmail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SALES MANAGERS FOR BANQUET FACILITIES EXEMPT FROM FLSA OVERTIME REQUIREMENT, SAYS FIRST CIRCUIT</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/sales-managers-for-banquet-facilities-exempt-from-flsa-overtime-requirement-says-first-circuit-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/sales-managers-for-banquet-facilities-exempt-from-flsa-overtime-requirement-says-first-circuit-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:48:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Three sales managers sued their former employer, a chain of banquet facilities that host high-end social functions, for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in Hines v. State Room, Inc. The banquet facilities stated that the sales managers were exempt from the overtime requirement because they were administrative employees under FLSA, 29 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/12/sales-managers-for-banquet-facilities-exempt-from-flsa-overtime-requirement-says-first-circuit-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TIDBITS FROM THE ROUNDTABLE: NHLRA Members talk about the economy and their recipes for success during troubled times</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/11/tidbits-from-the-roundtable-nhlra-members-talk-about-the-economy-and-their-recipes-for-success-during-troubled-times/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/11/tidbits-from-the-roundtable-nhlra-members-talk-about-the-economy-and-their-recipes-for-success-during-troubled-times/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national chains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[value]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Christopher T. Vrountas
I was privileged to moderate a round table discussion, hosting 4 prominent businesspeople in the hospitality industry, at the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association’s Annual Expo and Awards dinner held at the Grappone Center in Concord, NH on November 9, 2011.  We had a lively and enlightening discussion worth sharing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/11/tidbits-from-the-roundtable-nhlra-members-talk-about-the-economy-and-their-recipes-for-success-during-troubled-times/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Circuit Revisits Title VII Requirements for Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/first-circuit-revisits-title-vii-requirements-for-hostile-work-environment-and-retaliation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/first-circuit-revisits-title-vii-requirements-for-hostile-work-environment-and-retaliation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hostile Work Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Materially Adverse Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Racial Discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reprimands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Title VII]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/?p=539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Circuit recently revisited the requirements for establishing claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Bhatti v. Trustees of Boston University.  To establish a hostile work environment claim, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the facts and circumstances of their employment were so “severe” “pervasive” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/first-circuit-revisits-title-vii-requirements-for-hostile-work-environment-and-retaliation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>District Court of New Hampshire Finds Manufacturer of Food Packaging Equipment Cannot Repeatedly Postpone Orders</title>
		<link>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/district-court-of-new-hampshire-finds-manufacturer-of-food-packaging-equipment-cannot-repeatedly-postpone-orders/</link>
		<comments>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/district-court-of-new-hampshire-finds-manufacturer-of-food-packaging-equipment-cannot-repeatedly-postpone-orders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 21:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NKMSUser</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breach of Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercially Reasonable Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nkms.com/legalbites/?p=535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The District Court of New Hampshire recently awarded damages for breach of contract to a Middle Eastern food products manufacturer whose order had been repeatedly postponed in favor of larger more expensive shipments.  In Yorgo Foods v. Orics Indus. Inc., Yorgo Foods entered into a contract in December of 2006, for the creation of a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nkmlawyers.com/legalbites/index.php/2011/10/district-court-of-new-hampshire-finds-manufacturer-of-food-packaging-equipment-cannot-repeatedly-postpone-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>


