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

Employment Law

Burden now on employees to show age bias caused adverse action

02/16/2010

Good news for employers! The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision whose positive impact on employers is just being felt. The decision—Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., (129 S. Ct. 2343, 2009)—involved an employee who alleged that his reassignment to a new position constituted a demotion that was improperly motivated by his age. That would have violated the ADEA.

How much should I worry about employees using social networking sites?

02/16/2010

Q. I heard that Facebook use is really picking up, but I don’t think most of our employees are that tech-savvy. Should I be concerned about my employees accessing social networking sites while at work?

In hiring, don’t overvalue interview skills; courts question subjective decision-making

02/15/2010

Does your selection process rely heavily on how applicants handle themselves during job interviews? If so, be aware that courts are often suspicious of such inherently subjective decision-making. That’s why it’s best to document how objective qualifications—such as education and experience—counted for more than the fleeting impression of an interview.

Majority of union members now work for governments

02/12/2010

For the first time in history, the number of unionized public-sector workers exceeds the number of private-sector union members, despite the fact that there are five times more workers in the private sector, according to a new U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

Lawsuit-proof hiring: Post every job opening

02/12/2010

Here’s one of the simplest ways to avoid failure-to-hire litigation: Adopt a uniform system for posting openings—and then stick with that system. If you do, employees won’t be able to claim later that they didn’t know about an opening and would have applied if only they knew.

Check CBA for pay rules on safety gear prep

02/12/2010

Sometimes it’s hard to imagine many advantages of being a union workplace, but here’s a bit of good news: At least in some limited circumstances, working under a collective-bargaining agreement gives employers some protection against FLSA lawsuits that demand payment for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear at the beginning and end of the workday.

Texas employees file FLSA suit against T.J. Maxx

02/12/2010

Employees of T.J. Maxx stores in Texas have filed a class-action suit alleging that the retailer stiffed workers out of regular wages and overtime pay. The lawsuit claims management required workers who exceeded their scheduled hours to work off the clock and told them to use vacation and sick time to cover time worked beyond their scheduled hours.

Employee can’t claim constructive discharge on what might happen in workplace

02/12/2010

Some employees try to fabricate a lawsuit by resigning and then alleging that some form of discrimination made their working conditions so intolerable that they had no choice but to quit. The name of this claim: constructive discharge. Fortunately for employers, it takes more than a few isolated comments to create intolerable conditions. And, as the following case shows, the fear that working conditions will become intolerable isn’t enough to justify quitting before things get bad at work.

Serial sexual harasser on the loose? Get ready for big trial—and possibly huge judgment

02/12/2010

If you are having trouble getting top management to take sexual harassment seriously, here’s a case that might help them see the light. Explain that if they let a sexual harasser become a serial harasser, all the cases could be tried together. And that vastly increases the chances that a jury will hold the company liable.

Texas High Court rules arbitration agreements valid despite changing employment conditions

02/12/2010

The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that an arbitration agreement presented as a condition of employment is valid even though it was initially drafted by an HR management company that no longer manages personnel matters. The court looked carefully at the arbitration agreement and concluded it was a binding contract—partly because it contained a clause that allowed the employer to end the agreement prospectively only.