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

Retaliation

Warn managers: Don’t promise a rehire call

01/01/2008

Tell supervisors to avoid the encouraging words, “If we have an opening, we’ll give you a call.” They’re well-intentioned but legally dangerous. Tell departing employees you’ll consider them for any openings they’re qualified for if they apply. Then explain how you post job openings and leave the ball in their court …

Independent investigation doesn’t have to be perfect

01/01/2008

If you receive a discrimination complaint, conduct a prompt and thorough investigation. Then have an independent party decide on any discipline. If the investigation was independent and the decision-maker was not the same person who allegedly discriminated against the employee, it won’t matter if the decision-maker was wrong—just that he or she believed the reason was genuine …

$1.27 million to BART worker for harassment, retaliation

01/01/2008

A California Superior Court jury has awarded a San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) employee $1.27 million for racial harassment and retaliation …

Employee saying he ‘May’ have medical problem triggers FMLA

01/01/2008

Once an employer knows an employee will need FMLA leave, it cannot use that knowledge to the employee’s disadvantage. That’s true even if it’s only possible that the employee may need leave. It raises serious suspicions about your motives if you fire an employee shortly after he delivers notice he may need FMLA leave—and practically guarantees a lawsuit …

Mere accommodation request may support retaliation claim

01/01/2008

Both the ADA and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination make it illegal to retaliate against disabled employees who engage in what the law calls “protected activity.” Filing an EEOC complaint, testifying against an employer or cooperating in a government investigation are protected activities. So are more informal activities, such as discussing accommodations with a supervisor or HR …

Whistle-Blowers protected if they reasonably believe violation occurred

01/01/2008

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) is widely regarded as one of the most far-reaching whistle-blower laws in the country. It protects employees against retaliation if they bring attention to possible illegal activities. If an employee comes forward with a report of suspected wrongdoing, even if you believe he is incorrect, be very cautious about disciplining the employee …

Supervisors who say ‘What happens here, stays here’ invite retaliation claims

01/01/2008

Sometimes managers want to handle problems themselves and not involve the HR department or others in the chain of command. But telling employees to keep quiet and not complain to higher-ups actually may amount to retaliation. Threats and warnings, standing alone with no actual consequences, may be “materially adverse employment actions” when retaliation is the charge …

Philadelphia DEA agents allege reverse discrimination

01/01/2008

Opening arguments began in December in the federal civil trial of two U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents based in Philadelphia who are suing the U.S. Justice Department for reverse discrimination. George Marthers III and Jude McKenna, who are white, allege black former supervisors harassed them so severely that both men had to take medical leave …

Office love affair plus sales tips lead straight to court

01/01/2008

Jane Roberti worked as a loan officer for Allentown’s Becker Subaru. Her live-in boyfriend, Mark Wynne, also worked there as a salesman. Roberti’s responsibilities included funneling Internet sales leads to the salespeople. When employees began to complain that Roberti routed the best leads to Wynne, management counseled both to keep their personal and professional lives separate …

‘Adverse impact’ standard set for Texas Whistleblower Act

01/01/2008

The Texas Supreme Court has weighed in for the first time on an important interpretation of the Texas Whistleblower Act. Until now, a key term in the act was largely undefined: Exactly what is an “adverse employment action"? …