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

Employment Law

9th Circuit decision: Car dealership service advisors are nonexempt employees

05/20/2015
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that so-called automobile service advisors are nonexempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Does clicking ‘Send’ too soon deliver a lawsuit?

05/20/2015
Have you ever felt that punched-in-the-gut feeling after clicking “Send” and realizing you blasted an email to the wrong person? As the CEO in this case learned, one misguided email mixed with poor judgment can stir up a potent legal stew.

OK to discipline for intermittent leave abuse

05/19/2015
Unexpected absences can cause scheduling headaches. However, since FMLA leave is an entitlement, there isn’t much employers can do—at least when the call-offs are legitimate. But not every absence is legit.

When making layoff decisions, focus on worker performance, cite business necessity

05/18/2015
When it comes to reductions in force, employers must make sure that they develop a fair, reasonable and explainable selection process. Be prepared to show that the selection was based on sound business decisions and that the layoff wasn’t an excuse to terminate employees who might otherwise have a legal discrimination claim.

Leave harassment investigation to the pros

05/18/2015

There are compelling reasons to outsource or at least get legal help with a sexual harassment complaint. First and foremost, the investigation must be quick, thorough and reasonable. Employers that drop the ball and don’t punish what looks like a clear case of sexual harassment face a long, uphill battle in court.

Never retaliate for reporting safety hazards

05/18/2015
A federal appeals court has concluded that California employees are entitled to protection from retaliation for reporting safety hazards, even if it’s part of their jobs.

Must we pay for time spent preparing to work?

05/18/2015
Q. We have an employee who regularly comes into work a half-hour or more before her scheduled shift in order to get her work station ready and otherwise get herself set up for the day. This preparation time is important to the employee because she does not believe that she can meet the production requirements of her job without it. The employee has been told that she cannot start performing her actual job tasks until the start of her scheduled shift. Our new HR manager has advised that we must pay the employee for the time that she spends preparing for her shift, even though she had no approval to work during that time. Is that right?

Pregnancy accommodations in light of Young v. UPS decision

05/18/2015
On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in addressing whether employers must provide light duty and other accommodations to pregnant employees as they do for nonpregnant employees who experience a work-related illness or injury. The court’s decision in Young v. UPS did not directly answer that question.

Police union election offers lessons for employers

05/18/2015
The highly publicized battle for the leadership of the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis offers lessons for all employers with unionized workforces.

You don’t always have to be right–just honest

05/18/2015
As long as you act in good faith, most courts will uphold your honest HR decisions.