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

Employment Law

Do I need a state-specific separation agreement?

11/11/2010
Q. I am terminating employees in three states. Is it OK for me to use my standard separation agreement in all three states?

Know the NLRA: Unionized or not, labor law applies to you

11/11/2010

The federal labor law can be a trap for the unwary—even for nonunion employers. Even if your employees don’t belong to a union, the National Labor Relations Act applies to you. For example, the National Labor Relations Board recently announced that a nonunionized employer will pay $900,000 to two fired employees to settle charges that it violated the NLRA.

EEOC: U.S. Steel blew it with random alcohol testing policy

11/11/2010
The EEOC has sued U.S. Steel—with Minnesota operations in Hibbing, Ishpeming, Keewatin and Mountain Iron—because the company’s policy of randomly testing probationary employees for alcohol allegedly violates the ADA.

Some public employee speech is protected but not speech that’s part of the job

11/11/2010

Some government employees mistakenly believe an employer can’t punish anything they say because the U.S. Constitution gives them the right to free speech. They’re forgetting that free speech has limits. For example, their speech is protected only if it touches on matters of public importance. And it is not protected if the speech occurs as part of their jobs.

RIF might affect employees serving in military? Don’t hold missed training against them

11/11/2010

Watch out if you’re contemplating a layoff that could involve employees who have recently returned from active duty in the armed forces. If those employees missed any training, and you plan to use training as one of the criteria for deciding which employees to retain, you run the risk of violating USERRA.

Despite recent 8th Circuit ruling, stamp out ‘equal-opportunity harassment’ to keep harmony

11/11/2010

Here’s some food for thought: Failing to stop an employee from harassing women and men alike may be legally acceptable, but is probably still ill-advised. An employer that allows such conduct may escape legal liability, but that tolerance may make the workplace unattractive to good employees. Plus, it probably won’t be as productive as it would be with good anti-harassment policies in place.

Divided court may mean trouble for employers

11/11/2010
A decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals may mean changes are coming for employers accused of tolerating racial bias. Two of three judges on the panel concluded that an employer wasn’t liable for a series of co-worker comments that were arguably racist.

Furlough days: Eligible for unemployment?

11/11/2010
Q. Due to budget problems, we plan to furlough our employees for one day per month. Some have asked whether they can collect partial unemployment comp. What should I tell them?

How to Collect Employee Medical Info Under New FMLA Rules

11/10/2010
Login Email Address Password I forgot my password To continue reading this page, become an HR Specialist Premium Plus member today! Your subscription includes: Ask the Attorney: Answers to your HR legal questions Compliance Guidance: Access to 7,000 HR news articles, updated daily, sorted by state State-by-State: Summaries of HR laws in all 50 states […]

HR after the mid-terms: What’s Washington going to do?

11/09/2010
Republicans captured control of the House of Representatives in the mid-term elections, while Democrats retained a slim majority in the Senate. With a Democrat in the White House and a divided Congress, what does that mean for the HR-related issues that have dominated the headlines for the last two years? Here’s our rundown of the likely legislative scenarios.