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

Discrimination / Harassment

State wrongful discharge suit fails without actual firing

05/17/2010

Under many federal employment laws, employees don’t have to be fired to sue for wrongful termination. Instead, they can claim constructive discharge, alleging they had no choice but to quit. But that argument won’t fly for employees who try to sue their Illinois employers for common-law wrongful termination.

Dismissed criminal charge doesn’t require reinstatement

05/17/2010

When an employee is charged with a criminal offense that reflects on his ability to perform his job, many employers suspend or even fire the employee. If he’s acquitted, must he get his job back? Not necessarily.

Don’t believe it: Employee facing discipline can’t quit and then claim constructive discharge

05/17/2010

Some employees quit and then argue that they had no choice but to do so. This is known as “constructive discharge.” Such a claim can succeed in court if the employee can show that working conditions became so intolerable that quitting was the only reasonable response. But an employee can’t quit and claim constructive discharge just because he’s facing potential disciplinary action.

Offhand remarks don’t prove age discrimination

05/17/2010

Employees can’t win age discrimination lawsuits based solely on an offhand remark referring to an employee’s age. That’s because, unlike many other forms of employment discrimination, age discrimination cases require employees to prove that age was the reason for termination or some other negative employment action. Unless there’s more evidence, a mere comment isn’t enough.

Disciplinary mistake? Set it right–pronto!

05/17/2010

We all make mistakes, especially when acting in haste. Unfortunately, a mistake in the employment law world can mean an expensive lawsuit. But courts are inclined to forgive employers that genuinely try to make things right. That’s why employers should fix errors and make sure they remove any potential negative effects of disciplinary actions.

Minnesota’s own ‘equal rights amendment’ moves forward

05/14/2010
The Minnesota Senate will hold hearings on the Constitutional Amendment for Equality (CAFE), a state-level equivalent of the federal Equal Rights Amendment that failed to win ratification in the 1970s and ’80s. In a statement, Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party legislators said the amendment to the Minnesota constitution would protect women’s rights in ways statutes can’t.

Massive Walmart class action moves forward

05/14/2010

It’s the employment law case everyone is watching. A massive, long-running gender pay discrimination class action against Walmart has overcome another hurdle on its way to what could become the largest payout to employees in U.S. history. The plaintiffs—potentially 1.5 million women who have worked at 3,400 Walmart stores—got a victory in April when the full panel 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the go-ahead for the case to proceed.

 

Good news if you’re facing class action: Courts balk at letting classes snowball

05/14/2010

It’s one of the worst HR nightmares possible: One disgruntled employee claims she represents hundreds or thousands of employees who have allegedly suffered discrimination. What was a single case suddenly grows into a huge, companywide class-action lawsuit—with a price tag that has suddenly grown exponentially. Fortunately, federal courts handling Minnesota cases seem to be stepping back from the brink. They’re not approving as many class-action requests.

Employee thinks he has you over a barrel? If it sounds like extortion, fire him!

05/14/2010

You know that you can’t retaliate against an employee who, in good faith, complains about alleged discrimination. That’s true even if it turns out that he was wrong and no discrimination actually occurred. The key there is “good faith.” It’s not retaliation to fire someone who is simply trying to extort a benefit by making a frivolous complaint.

Beware the cat’s paw: How innocent decisions create liability

05/11/2010

It comes as a bolt out of the blue: The Florida Commission on Human Relations notifies you that there’s “reasonable cause” to believe retaliation was the reason a female employee lost out on a promotion to a male co-worker. But it was a clean promotion process! How did this happen? As it turns out, this is the “cat’s paw” doctrine at work.