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

Employment Law

When employee sues, beware whistle-blower add-on that alleges violation of public policy

11/24/2010

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act protects employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing. That can include reporting conduct that the employee reasonably believes violates “a law, rule or regulation … or a clear mandate of public policy.” The employee doesn’t have to get very specific, especially claiming he blew the whistle on conduct that violates public policy.

Make sure post-firing documentation doesn’t pile on extra reasons for termination

11/24/2010
Remember this the next time you have to terminate an employee: If you plan to prepare a post-discharge summary, don’t succumb to the temptation to add new reasons to justify the firing. Post-discharge memos should simply describe the decision and how you carried it out, not look like an attempt to justify a decision made earlier.

N.J. may add another protected category: the unemployed

11/24/2010

It may soon be illegal for New Jersey employers to discriminate against applicants because they are unemployed. The State Assembly in October passed legislation prohibiting employers and recruiters from placing anything in job ads that would discourage unemployed persons from applying.

Management exemption looks at duties, not time

11/24/2010

Retail managers are generally responsible for everything that happens in their stores. But they often spend most of their time doing the same work that hourly employees do. Even so, they may qualify as exempt employees under the FLSA. It’s the quality of the management work they do that counts, not the number of hours they spend doing it.

Which one is tougher: NJLAD or the ADA?

11/24/2010
Some New Jersey employers don’t fully realize that it’s far easier for an employee to claim disability under state law than it is under the ADA. And if an employer underestimates its state obligations, it might fail to accommodate the employee. And that probably means a lawsuit.

Tell bosses: Don’t nudge staff into retirement

11/24/2010

Remind supervisors to avoid comments that could be interpreted as pushing soon-to-retire workers out the door. If an older employee has to be terminated, a supervisor’s not-so-subtle hints at retirement will make it easier to persuade a court that age was the supervisor’s true reason for the firing.

OSHA plans ‘radical change’ to workplace noise standards

11/23/2010

With little fanfare, OSHA last month said it’s considering what employer groups are calling a “radical change” to employer obligations regarding workers’ exposure to occupational noise. “The announcement may have been quiet, but the impacts could be loud,” says a report by the Nixon Peabody law firm. “If adopted in their current form, the new obligations will be substantial and the potential cost to employers is likely to be immense.”

Federal employees lead pack in race to end distracted driving

11/23/2010

When OSHA launched Drive Safely Work Week in October, employees of the federal government were already in the driver’s seat. President Obama signed an executive order last year prohibiting federal employees from texting while driving. This fall, OSHA called on all employers to do the same for their employees.

Can deciding not to discipline lead to court?

11/22/2010

It happens: A supervisor wants to discipline an employee, but HR or upper management nixes the idea because it knows something the boss doesn’t. Perhaps the employee had suffered discrimination in the past and was placed in a new position for a fresh start. Be prepared for legal fallout if you wind up disciplining the supervisor.

Firing worker for Facebook rant: Is it illegal?

11/22/2010

In what could be a groundbreaking case, the National Labor Relations Board filed an unfair labor practice complaint last month against a Connecticut company that fired a worker who complained about her supervisor on Facebook. This is the first case in which the NLRB has argued that workers’ criticisms on social networking sites are protected activity.