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

Employment Law

FMLA protection can be triggered by ‘Potential’ of serious illness

05/02/2008
But does the FMLA cover leave taken by an employee who thinks he has a serious condition and needs some tests to check it out? Yes, it does. That’s why employers should never discipline or fire employees while they’re in this “limbo” medical stage …

Notify employees every time you plan to charge time off to FMLA

05/02/2008
When employees take leave to deal with serious health conditions, inform them that you plan to charge that time against their allotment of unpaid FMLA leave. If you fail to do so, it will be relatively easy for her to sue and show she was harmed by the lack of notice …

Service members’ jobs protected—If actually employed

05/01/2008
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of the armed forces by allowing them to return to their jobs when their service ends. But USERRA has limits, applying only to service members who actually were employees when they went to serve …

Good news: Court nixes class action for unrelated claims

05/01/2008
Good news on the class action front. A federal court has refused to allow a lawsuit to go forward as a class action when it was clear that none of the employees named in the complaint had anything in common except that they worked for the same company …

You can require absent employees to follow call-In process

05/01/2008
To manage the workload, employers have to know who will be at work and who will not. After all, when an employee isn’t at work, someone else has to step in and get the work done. Of course, employees sometimes do get sick or have emergencies. A well-crafted call-in policy can help employers cope with unexpected absences …

Despite complaint, unreasonable demands may merit firing

05/01/2008
An employer often bends over backward when an employee says she’s been harassed. It feels compelled to treat the complaining employee with kid gloves to avoid possible retaliation charges. That may be a mistake, especially if the employee becomes disruptive and generally uncooperative …`

Managing the consequences of an affair badly ended

05/01/2008
Ordinarily, a consensual affair carried on outside the workplace, even between a supervisor and a subordinate, won’t mean liability for the employer if the supervisor never threatened or punished the subordinate at work. But once the affair is over, and management finds out about the relationship, it’s critical to make sure the subordinate isn’t unfairly punished …

When discrimination charges are possible, investigate thoroughly before firing

05/01/2008
When you fire an employee, you want the decision to stick. You certainly don’t want to use a flimsy reason for discharge and then find out later that other employees regularly ignore your rule. If the former employee is a member of a protected class, that’s a sure recipe for a discrimination lawsuit …

Complaining about harassment of non-Employee isn’t protected activity

05/01/2008
Ordinarily, employers can’t punish employees who stand up for co-workers who are being discriminated against. But what if the employee speaks out against the employer’s treatment of someone who is not an employee? As the following case shows, punishing the employee probably doesn’t violate Title VII …

Anti-Nepotism trumps familial status discrimination

05/01/2008
Good news for employers with strong anti-nepotism policies: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a claim based on alleged familial status discrimination. The court ruled that Title VII does not protect family members from an employer’s decision not to hire a relative when company rules bar nepotism …