• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Discrimination / Harassment

Ensure complaint doesn’t taint firing decision

04/29/2015

Employees who file discrimination complaints are protected from retaliation. When a complaint is closely followed by termination, it becomes easier for the fired employee to show the two were linked and that one caused the other. Smart employers cut this causal connection by making sure that whoever makes the termination decision wasn’t involved in the employee’s original complaint.

OK to pay more for different skills, duties

04/29/2015
Under the Equal Pay Act, men and women performing substantially similar jobs must be paid the same. But what exactly constitutes “substantially similar” jobs?

Pregnancy bias: Supreme Court creates a new legal framework

04/28/2015
The Supreme Court has ruled that a pregnant UPS employee who was denied a light-duty position is entitled to a new trial. The court’s framework for pregnancy discrimination cases allows employees who show that an employer policy that creates a “significant burden” for pregnant employees violates the Preg­­nancy Dis­­crimi­­na­­tion Act.

Sudden quit? Sort out why before panicking

04/28/2015
Good news if an employee isn’t satisfied with whatever you did to try to address a problem she raised: She can’t just quit in frustration and expect to win a lawsuit against you.

EEOC loses case based on ‘illegal’ claims releases

04/27/2015
The EEOC has lost an important test of a novel theory that could have changed how some severance agreements are structured. It wanted to forbid requiring workers to waive the right to sue if they were converted from employees to independent contractors.

Will nonnegotiable starting pay close the gender gap?

04/23/2015

New Reddit interim CEO Ellen Pao—fresh off losing a high-profile sex discrimination lawsuit against her former employer—has announced that on her watch, the user-generated Web news organization will no longer negotiate starting salaries with new hires. The reason: To make the workplace fairer for women.

Could we be liable for accidental bias against those or ‘associated with’ protected groups?

04/21/2015
Q. As a California employer, I realize that I cannot discriminate against employees who belong to protected groups. But what if I mistakenly think that an employee is or is not a member of one of these groups, and accidentally treat him or her in a way that is discriminatory?

No sexual harassment? Then no employer liability

04/21/2015
An appeals court has reversed a quarter-million-dollar punitive-damages award for sexual harassment. The problem: The employee couldn’t prove the alleged harassment was pervasive or frequent enough to constitute a hostile environment.

Piling on disciplinary charges can look like retaliation

04/21/2015
It’s easier for employees to prove retaliation for complaining about discrimination than it is to prove the underlying complaint. When disciplining someone who has complained, make sure each infraction is iron-clad—and don’t pile on additional dubious charges.

You don’t have to evaluate motive when employee accuses co-workers of same-sex harassment

04/21/2015
Same-sex harassment claims are tough to prove under Title VII. It’s especially hard if the harassment seems more for the purpose of annoying the harassed worker. But that’s not how the California Fair Employment and Housing Act handles same sex harassment, as an employer recently found out.