Ordinarily, an employee who is injured while off duty isn’t eligible for workers’ compensation for those injuries. But a recent Georgia court ruling has expanded liability to protect at least some employees who are hurt while on call …
To protect employers from frivolous lawsuits and encourage open, honest communication, Georgia’s unemployment compensation law blocks people from suing their former employers over what the organization says during a hearing …
The U.S. Labor Department recently sued Chatsworth-based Bryant Transportation Inc. and two company officers for more than $85,000 in unpaid claims under its self-insured health insurance plan …
Heads up: The New Jersey Supreme Court just decided an employer insurance case that may mean insurance carriers will change the way they write errors-and-omissions policies …
As if life in HR weren’t hard enough, a federal court has clarified when you may be held individually liable for mistakes in administering anti-discrimination and benefit laws …
If your organization pays someone a small amount to perform extra tasks around your workplace, are they technically “employees”? Maybe … and that means you may be on the hook for workers’ compensation benefits if the person is hurt on the premises …
Employers can cut their workers’ comp costs by having injured employees return to work as soon as possible. That may mean offering them light-duty positions if they’re not ready to resume more demanding jobs. But what happens if an employee rejects your light-duty offer? …
One part of the federal law that bans job discrimination (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) makes it illegal to retaliate against employees who engage in “protected activity,” such as filing a discrimination complaint. But here’s a key point to remember: That protected activity must be related to discrimination claims under Title VII …
In response to moves to limit smoking in the early 1990’s, the legislature amended the state labor code to forbid employers from discriminating against employees who smoke. Specifically, it’s illegal for employers to discriminate against “the lawful use of lawful products during nonworking hours” …