• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly
Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [2002] No such file or directory

North Dakota

You don’t have to raise arbitration pact with EEOC

08/13/2009

Do you require employees to sign an agreement to arbitrate workplace disputes as a condition of employment? If so, you don’t lose the right to force the case into arbitration if you don’t ask for it during an EEOC investigation.

It cuts both ways: Be on guard for religious harassment that offends nonbelievers, too

08/13/2009

Employees are entitled to work in an environment free from religious harassment, and employers should treat such harassment just as seriously as they do any other kind of harassment. Do that by promptly investigating complaints and fixing any problems you discover. What you don’t want to do is ignore religious harassment.

Beware alternative to Title VII: There’s another way to file for race discrimination

08/13/2009

You are no doubt familiar with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It prohibits various kinds of discrimination and also spells out tight deadlines for when employees must file complaints with a state discrimination agency or the EEOC. But there is another avenue employees can use to get into federal court, as long as race is at the core of the discrimination claim: Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act.

When union tensions boil, make sure managers keep cool when tempted to make accusations

08/13/2009

If your organization is a target for union organizing or your employees have recently voted to be represented by a union, be careful how you respond. You should consult with an experienced labor lawyer before you do anything else. Consider what happened in one recent case.

Investigate bias claims to declaw ‘cat’s paw’

07/08/2009

A legal theory often referred to as the “cat’s paw” holds that an employer can be liable for hidden bias if it merely rubber stamps a subordinate’s discriminatory decision. By conducting an independent evaluation of the situation, you can cut off that liability.

Acting against worker who has already complained? Have someone new make decision

07/08/2009

Employers have faced more retaliation claims ever since the U.S. Supreme Court made such cases easier to win by ruling that retaliation is an action that “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” While the federal courts have placed some limits on what constitutes a retaliatory act, they continue to struggle with the question.

‘Unethical’ isn’t enough under Minnesota whistle-blower law

07/08/2009

Employers can’t fire employees in retaliation for “blowing the whistle” on illegal activities. But Minnesota’s Whistleblower Statute doesn’t apply to workers who complain about practices they simply think are unethical.

Make sure employees don’t work on breaks; burden’s on them to prove they did

06/11/2009

Here’s a bit of good news for employers trying to make sure they don’t violate the Fair Labor Standards Act: The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that employees—not employers—have the initial burden of showing they actually worked during unpaid lunch or other break periods.

Make firing decisions locally so possible lawsuit can’t morph into something larger

06/11/2009

Here’s added incentive to handle terminations and other employment actions at the local level. When employees sue, their attorneys often look to expand the lawsuit beyond one person. They’re trying to find larger patterns of discrimination. This strategy can sometimes succeed if higher-ups in the company made the decision and based it on a common policy or framework.

Avoid shifting explanations for termination

05/13/2009

One of the worst things you can do after you terminate an employee is change the reason for ending the employment relationship. Instead, decide on a defensible rationale—a performance problem or rule violation, for example, or perhaps a business downturn—and document that decision and all the supporting evidence.