Employment Law

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.

No STD documentation? OK to discipline–or fire

06/09/2010

If you offer short-term disability (STD) benefits for employees who can’t work because of illness, you probably insist on medical documentation. If the employee doesn’t provide that information within the reasonable timeline your STD plan requires, you can count the absence against the employee and terminate her.

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.

Employment Law

Court allows case to continue despite vague claims

Court nixes ‘sham’ job-offer argument

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

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

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

No STD documentation? OK to discipline–or fire

MHRA: Court clarifies what’s marital bias

Is our policy on criminal records legal?

What legal issues should we weigh before allowing employees to bring their pets to work

What are the legal risks of not paying interns?

Tools

Advice by State

Advice by Topic