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

Employment Law

Court says ‘First things first’: No EEOC complaint means no federal lawsuit

12/09/2009

A federal trial court has refused to open the litigation floodgates for former employees who go directly to federal court instead of following the proper procedures before suing. Employees who want to sue for employment discrimination under Title VII are supposed to file a complaint with the EEOC or a state discrimination agency first.

Some relatives now eligible for unemployment compensation

12/09/2009

Until recently, people employed in small businesses owned by their close relatives weren’t eligible for unemployment compensation. However, in late 2008, the Legislature changed the law to allow benefits if the relative had worked for the business for at least 16 quarters and earned more than $7,500 per quarter.

Quitting work when spouse transfers may mean benefits

12/09/2009

In the past, employees who quit their jobs because they had to relocate when a spouse was transferred were not eligible for unemployment compensation. That changed when Minnesota amended its unemployment compensation law to get more federal stimulus money.

DEED: Half of employers shirking WARN Act obligations

12/09/2009

Businesses that plan to lay off enough workers to trigger the federal WARN Act must give 60 days’ notice to employees and state officials. That’s supposed to allow state Rapid Response teams enough time to start helping find new jobs for soon-to-be displaced workers. But the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) says in many cases employer cooperation is grudging at best.

Hobby Lobby to pay for asking disabled worker to climb ladder

12/09/2009

A nationwide hobby and gift store chain will pay $35,000 into a supplemental needs trust account for Julie Tufts, a former employee of the Hobby Lobby store in Rochester.

Take these 4 steps before you implement a reduction in force

12/09/2009

As the recession continues, many employers have had to turn to reductions in force as an unfortunate yet necessary cost-saving measure. Count on some of those former employees to sue. Employers considering implementing RIFs must understand the legal and practical issues that can trap the unwary. Taking these four steps can minimize the risks of lawsuits:

A worker is asking us for a loan: How can we set up a legal repayment plan?

12/09/2009

Q. An employee wants to borrow $2,000 from the company to cover a family emergency, and we’re willing to make the loan. How should we structure the loan and repayment terms so we can deduct a certain amount from the employee’s bimonthly paycheck? We also want to be able to deduct the balance of the loan from the employee’s final paycheck in the event he is terminated before completely repaying the loan.

How should we count FMLA leave when both parents work for the same company?

12/09/2009

Q. Our company employs a husband and his wife in different departments. Their daughter has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition that requires hospitalization for extended periods of time. The couple wants to know how much time they are entitled to under the FMLA to care for their child. Our company policy provides that spouses employed by the company can get only a combined total of 12 weeks to care for a sick child. Is that a correct application of the law, or does the FMLA prevent us from implementing such a policy?

During the hiring process, when is it OK to ask about disabilities?

12/09/2009

Q. Are there any circumstances where an employer can justify considering a prospective employee’s disability in making hiring decisions?

Is it legal to pay just a partial day’s pay for employees who work less than a full shift?

12/09/2009

Q. We scheduled an hourly employee to work a full day, but he worked only part of the day because we didn’t have enough for him to do. With the slowdown in our business, we expect this will be happening with this and other employees more frequently.Do we have to pay hourly employees for a full day of work or just the actual number of hours worked?