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

Discrimination / Harassment

Remind hiring managers: What you wear during interview may invite discrimination lawsuit

06/14/2010

Have you reminded managers and supervisors that they should keep their dress professional when conducting interviews? If not, do so. Attire that’s too casual—especially if it features a potentially offensive logo or design—can easily lead to a discrimination lawsuit.

Supreme Court rules on Chicago hiring test

06/14/2010
In a case coming out of Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that each time an employer uses the results of a test to select candidates for promotion creates a new opportunity for employees to challenge that test. That means if a test was invalid, its continued use may spur litigation long after the test was actually administered.

High Court: Bias clock resets with each hiring decision

06/10/2010
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in May ruled that the lawsuit clock resets each time an employer uses apparently biased job-qualification tests to make hiring decisions. The court said the timing of Title VII lawsuits doesn’t depend on when the test was administered, but on when the employer uses the test results, even if that’s years later.

Court allows case to continue despite vague claims

06/09/2010

Don’t expect to get a case tossed out just because the complaint is vague. The fact is, courts are willing to let an employee continue a quest for a big jury award as long as the complaint puts the employer on notice about the essentials, if not the specifics, of the case.

Court nixes ‘sham’ job-offer argument

06/09/2010

Consider this scenario: An employee lodges a complaint that her sex or race kept her from being promoted. Shortly after, you offer her an opportunity for advancement. She then turns around and sues, alleging that the offer was a sham. Fortunately, courts are rejecting such arguments.

When discrimination is at issue, manager’s race alone doesn’t imply prejudice

06/09/2010
Here’s one thing you don’t have to worry about—the race of the manager terminating another employee. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected the idea that just because the decision-maker happens to be of a different race than the employee being disciplined, there may be racism involved.

Address sexual harassment fast! It’s the right–and smart–thing to do

06/09/2010

When you find out that an employee has been doing things that make the work environment sexually hostile, you must fix the problem right away. The sooner you do, the less likely that an employee will successfully sue. That’s because employees have just 300 days to file EEOC charges. That clock starts ticking as soon as you start acting to clean up the environment.

Keep hiring as objective as possible — and beware loose criteria that could let in bias

06/09/2010

At some point, an unsuccessful job candidate may challenge your decision not to hire him. Then you will have to justify your selection process. The more objective criteria you use, the more likely a court will agree not to second-guess your decision. But if you add subjective elements to the process, you may end up being charged with discrimination.

MHRA: Court clarifies what’s marital bias

06/09/2010
The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) makes it an unfair employment practice to terminate an employee based on marital status. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota has now clarified that the law covers more than the state of being married; it also bans discrimination based on who one’s spouse is.

Is our policy on criminal records legal?

06/09/2010
Q. We currently have a policy against the hiring of anyone with a felony conviction. Can you shed some light on whether this policy is legal?