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

Discrimination / Harassment

Calm is key when handling chronic complainers

11/24/2009

Some employees are natural complainers. They can and will find something to gripe about, no matter what. If one of your employees fits that mold and files incessant EEOC or internal complaints, how you handle those can mean the difference between a mildly annoying pain in the neck and a lost lawsuit. How? Chances are, chronic complainers won’t be able to make a solid case that they’ve suffered discrimination. But if you decide to punish her, she may have a retaliation lawsuit.

Terminated employee claims discrimination? Warn managers against any sort of retaliation

11/24/2009

Some managers and supervisors can’t leave well enough alone after they terminate an employee. When the former employee files a lawsuit, they try to find a way to strike back. That can be a disaster! That’s why you must make sure bosses understand the consequences that may flow from a single act of vengeance or anger.

Your ‘good faith’ goes a long way toward fair religious accommodations

11/24/2009

As the workforce grows more diverse, so do the religious practices that employers may be asked to accommodate.
Consider a policy that clearly sets out how to request time off for religious practices, and establish a mechanism for deciding who gets priority. It may not be possible for everyone to get their desired time off, but as long as you don’t discriminate against a particular religion, reasonable limits are likely to stand up in court.

Firing a long-time employee? Good documentation beats age bias claim

11/24/2009

Employees who have worked for their employers for decades often assume that if they are fired, it must be because of their advancing age. Then they sue, alleging age discrimination. Because they have been employed for so long, they usually don’t have any trouble showing that they were qualified for their job. That puts the burden on employers to prove they had a sound reason for the termination.

Frivolous case filed too late? Too bad

11/24/2009

Judges generally bend over backward to give leeway to employees who represent themselves in court. But now some judges have begun showing more sympathy to the plight of employers that have to defend against those lawsuits—which often turn out to be frivolous.

Limping employee not ensured NJLAD protection

11/24/2009

You know that you can run into trouble if you treat someone as disabled when they are not. But you’re not in violation of the “perceiving as disabled” provisions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) every time you notice an employee has a physical problem.

Can we require harassment complaints in writing?

11/23/2009

Q. Our new plant manager wants to revise the company’s sexual harassment policy to require all employee complaints to be in writing. Can we do this?

No retaliation against co-workers who testify

11/20/2009

It can be frustrating for supervisors when an employee files a lawsuit they honestly think is bogus. It only gets worse if other employees testify on behalf of the employee. When the case ends up being dismissed, it’s natural for managers to carry at least a slight grudge. They no doubt understand that they can’t retaliate against the employee just because he brought a lawsuit. What they may not understand as clearly is that they can’t retaliate against the supportive co-workers, either.

U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear California sex harassment case

11/20/2009

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a Court of Appeal of California decision upholding a reduction of the punitive damages awarded to a former supermarket employee in a sexual harassment case.

FEHA allows terminating pregnant employee if there is absolutely no way to accommodate

11/20/2009

Pregnant employees are protected from discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). That means employers have an obligation to reasonably accommodate pregnant employees so they can continue to perform the essential functions of their jobs. But that obligation has limits, as the following case shows.