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

Employment Law

Court orders foundation chief to give up $5.3 million in comp

07/08/2009

Texas’ Third Court of Appeals in Austin recently upheld a jury’s order that Carl Yeckel, the former president of the board of directors at the Carl B. & Florence E. King Foundation, give up $5.3 million in excess compensation that he and other board members allegedly authorized for themselves.

Houston business owner sentenced for harboring illegals

07/08/2009

The owner and two managers of a Houston-based used clothing exporting business were recently sentenced to prison for conspiring to harbor illegal immigrants. During a raid at Action Rags USA Inc. last year, ICE agents arrested 166 undocumented workers from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

EEOC offers new guidance to avoid bias against employee/caregivers

07/08/2009

In 2007, the EEOC released a set of guidelines advising employers on issues related to caregiver bias. Following up on that issue, the commission has supplemented those guidelines with recommendations designed to help employers “reduce the chance of EEO violations against caregivers.” It’s imperative that companies begin to train managers and supervisors on the content of this most recent guidance.

Just-departed worker owes us money: Can we dock (or withhold) his final paycheck?

07/08/2009

Q. One of my employees who recently quit has failed to pay back a personal charge he made on our corporate credit card. Can I simply deduct the amount of the charge from his last paycheck or withhold his final paycheck until he pays for the charge?

Under Texas law, do fired employees have a legal right to see their personnel files?

07/08/2009

Q. I recently fired an employee for performance problems. At the end of the termination meeting, he asked for a copy of his personnel file. Do I have to give discharged employees copies of their personnel files?

Warn bosses: ‘Getting even’ can be retaliation

07/08/2009

It’s natural for supervisors and managers to become upset when employees accuse them of some form of discrimination. Tell them they must resist the impulse to strike back. It inevitably makes the situation worse. Many forms of managerial punishment may end up being construed as retaliation—which can be far easier to prove than the alleged discrimination that started all the trouble.

Investigate bias claims to declaw ‘cat’s paw’

07/08/2009

A legal theory often referred to as the “cat’s paw” holds that an employer can be liable for hidden bias if it merely rubber stamps a subordinate’s discriminatory decision. By conducting an independent evaluation of the situation, you can cut off that liability.

Supreme Court: Even good faith can lead to discrimination

07/08/2009

In one of its most anticipated employment law decisions in years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that New Haven, Conn., discriminated against white firefighters when it refused to promote them after they passed a test that most black co-workers failed.

3M wins class-action decertification—for now

07/08/2009

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has decertified a class-action lawsuit brought by 4,900 current and former Minnesota employees of 3M. The suit alleged that company policies, seemingly neutral, actually had a disparate impact on older workers.

Acting against worker who has already complained? Have someone new make decision

07/08/2009

Employers have faced more retaliation claims ever since the U.S. Supreme Court made such cases easier to win by ruling that retaliation is an action that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” While the federal courts have placed some limits on what constitutes a retaliatory act, they continue to struggle with the question.