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

Employment Law

Ohio Supreme Court fills gap for those fired after injury, but before filing for workers’ comp

06/30/2011
The Supreme Court of Ohio has just created a new avenue for at-will employees who are discharged and want to claim their firing violates public policy. In the following case, the court ruled that employees who are fired after reporting an on-the-job injury but before they have a chance to file a workers’ compensation claim can sue for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Worker pregnant? At least say, ‘Congratulations!’

06/30/2011

Here’s a tip that can save needless hassle: Tell managers and super­visors they should greet every pregnancy announcement with a big smile and a hearty “Congratulations!” That’s because at least one federal court in Ohio has used a supervisor’s silence as possible circumstantial evi­dence that the pregnant employee was discharged because she was expecting.

What are the rules on unpaid interns?

06/30/2011
Q. We have received résumés from many college students looking for unpaid positions this fall. Would we need to pay these interns?

Title company’s closing costs may include damages for age bias

06/30/2011
A 69-year-old woman who has worked for Central Title, a Tyler County title company, since 1992 is suing her former employer, claiming she was a victim of age discrimination.

Truck driver files race suit against Alice energy company

06/30/2011
A former employee of Texas Energy Service is suing the company under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging it fired him because he is black.

‘Pops’ sues for discrimination after firing

06/30/2011
An East Texas sales manager who claims he was fired while lower-performing, younger employees kept their jobs has filed an age discrimination suit against his former employer, Sagemcom Communications USA. He also accuses his boss of calling him “pops,” “old timer” and other derogatory names.

Punishing son for father’s complaint is retaliation

06/30/2011
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Thompson v. North American Stainless that it’s retaliation to fire someone because his fiancée complained about discrimination. Since then, courts have had to reconsider the idea that only the original complainant can sue for retaliation.

Considering asking for court review of arbitration decisions

06/30/2011
Think every arbitration decision is final? Think again. Arbi­tration agreements can allow a court to review the decision, as long as both parties agreed.

How to avoid ‘at-will’ legal limbo: Have attorney prepare employment contracts

06/30/2011

Here’s a case that shows you can’t have it both ways. A Texas appeals court has concluded that an employer can’t enforce an employment contract against an employee when that contract specifies that the employee remains an at-will employee.

Think twice before setting ‘English-only’ rule; courts view complaints as protected activity

06/30/2011
Don’t try to prevent employees from speaking languages other than Eng­lish at work, especially when they’re chatting among themselves. Unless you have a good business reason for banning other languages, courts will likely see the practice as discriminatory.