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

Discrimination / Harassment

Document warnings to chronically late worker

04/14/2009

Your documentation of an employee’s chronic tardiness will prove its value if you fire the employee and she sues for some kind of discrimination. If you can show you let the employee know about your concerns and the consequences, rest assured she would have a hard time winning her case.

When religion causes a problem—or three—show why accommodating is a hardship

04/14/2009

Sometimes, employees claim protection from religious discrimination based on very unconventional beliefs. No matter how unusual, employers must reasonably accommodate those beliefs unless doing so causes an undue hardship. Employers should be prepared to show why it would be a hardship before terminating the employee.

Craft broad settlement language to thwart 2nd lawsuit

04/14/2009

Employers that decide to settle harassment and discrimination claims, take note. The broader the settlement agreement language, the less likely the employee will turn around and file a new lawsuit. Always have an attorney approve settlement terms to make sure they are as broad as possible.

Discrimination difference: Unfair not always illegal

04/14/2009

We’d all like to think we run a fair workplace. But people are imperfect, and supervisors sometimes aren’t fair. It’s only when that unfairness harms members of a protected class that the practice is illegal.

Solid salary plan beats equal pay lawsuits

04/14/2009

If you haven’t looked carefully at how you determine compensation, here is another reason to do so soon. Employers that can show a court they set salaries based on logical, fair and unbiased factors are likely to win Equal Pay Act lawsuits. That’s because the EPA outlaws sex discrimination in pay, but allows employers to use factors other than sex to set pay rates.

Consent doesn’t mean it wasn’t harassment

04/14/2009

Employers sometimes mistakenly believe that consensual sexual activity between a subordinate and a supervisor isn’t sexual harassment. That’s simply not the case. As long as the activity was unwelcome, it doesn’t matter if the employee being targeted agreed to the supervisor’s demands. Fear or threats of losing one’s job can be enough to force an employee to “consent.”

Set policies, establish clear process for employees to report sexual harassment

04/14/2009

It’s been many years since a big sexual harassment case hit the Supreme Court. That’s no reason for employers to rest easy. Regularly review your sexual harassment policy to make sure it’s doing what it should do. Don’t forget to train new managers and supervisors on how to handle complaints, especially those who have recently been promoted from lower-ranking positions.

Go ahead and detail performance problems—criticism isn’t an adverse employment action

04/14/2009

Employees can sue for discrimination only if they can show they suffered an “adverse employment action.” In other words, they have to show that their employers somehow did something that affected their jobs—such as a demotion, discharge or pay cut. Merely criticizing an employee’s performance isn’t enough if it isn’t accompanied by something more substantial.

Using subjective hiring factors? Make sure you can clearly explain later

04/14/2009

Here’s an important reminder to managers and supervisors who interview candidates and use subjective characteristics to make hiring and promotion decisions: They’d better be able to explain exactly what led them to make the decisions they made. Interviewers should keep careful notes, including the specific questions they asked, as well as how the candidate answered the question.

Warn supervisors not to react to EEOC complaint

04/14/2009

It may be tough, but supervisors must avoid the temptation to lash out when they learn that a subordinate has filed an EEOC or other discrimination claim. Tell them not to discuss the matter with the employee. Instead, let HR and the lawyers handle the problem. It isn’t worth the risk of triggering a retaliation claim.