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

Discrimination / Harassment

Keep the lawsuit clock on your side: Make sure workers know exact date of actions

10/31/2011
Employees have only a short period of time to file their initial dis­crimi­na­tion claims. The clock starts ticking as soon as the employee knows (or should have known) about some material, potentially adverse job change. That’s why you need to be absolutely clear to employees when you make a job change—and note it in your files.

Loose lips lead to liability when word of alleged employee wrongdoing leaks out

10/27/2011

Pennsylvania allows lawsuits for portraying someone in a false light. For employers, that means you can be sued for publicizing information relating to discipline that turns out to be inaccurate. Thus, it makes sense to discuss discipline only with those who have a need to know.

Grocer, baker, Sabbath-taker embroiled

10/27/2011
A Dauphin County man who delivered Tastykakes to Giant Food stores is suing both the Tasty Baking Co. and the grocery store chain for religious discrimination after his contract was terminated. But Giant says it had no relationship with the deliveryman and wants to be removed from the suit.

3rd Circuit takes dim view when employees appeal decisions in frivolous lawsuits

10/26/2011
Good news for employers vexed by employees’ repetitious and frivolous lawsuits: If a trial court does a good job explaining why a case should be dismissed, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals probably won’t grant an appeal.

Be prepared to show business necessity if ­hiring rule excludes members of protected class

10/26/2011

Hiring rules that end up excluding many applicants who belong to a protected class can spell big trou­ble. That’s because if the rule has a disparate impact on any particular protected class, it may be invalid and could become the basis for a lawsuit. At a minimum, be prepared to show that the rule is based on business necessity.

Better treatment after claim? That’s hardly punishment

10/25/2011

Employees who complain about har­­assment are protected from retaliation. It follows that if the employee is promoted and gets a raise, he can’t argue that he was punished. One employee’s case before the 9th Circuit Court failed because his employer treated him well after he complained.

Fresno laser clinic sees light on harassment

10/25/2011

Employers don’t just have to protect employees from harassment by co-workers and supervisors. They’re also responsible for keeping employees safe from others they must interact with on the job. American Laser Centers, the largest laser hair removal company in the U.S., found that out the hard way.

7th Circuit favors employer on pregnancy complications & ADA

10/18/2011
Are pregnant employees who develop complications disabled and entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA? A federal appeals court considered the question for the first time in Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare LLC.

EEOC says Texas Roadhouse won’t hire well-aged workers

10/18/2011
The EEOC has filed suit against the Texas Roadhouse, claiming the na­­tional restaurant chain discriminates against older workers by denying them “front of the house” hourly po­­si­­tions, steering them instead into kitchen jobs or refusing to hire them.

Be alert for retaliation suit if manager reports that a colleague discriminates or harasses

10/18/2011

It’s protected activity if a manager reports to HR that another manager has been treating subordinates who belong to a protected class more harshly than other subordinates. Punishing the reporting manager for doing so could be retaliation.