Firing

Tell managers: No comments on family planning

01/11/2010

Some comments simply aren’t appropriate in the workplace—especially when the person weighing in is a supervisor or manager. Most bosses understand they can’t use ethnic or racial slurs, but many don’t understand that the same common sense applies to discussing family planning.

Twist on bias headed for Supreme Court? Cat’s paw theory claws back

01/11/2010

After taking a back seat to other employment issues on the U.S. Supreme Court’s agenda, the “cat’s paw” theory of liability may well be coming back into the spotlight, and employers better be ready. Whether or not Staub v. Proctor Hospital reaches the Supreme Court, the case should be a wake-up call: Cat’s paw cases are out there and they can lead to protracted, costly litigation.

Flying pocketknife cuts into heart of employer’s policy

01/07/2010

Employers may suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from time to time. But when knives fly at work, supervisors better know the relevant company policies. Consider the case of an employee at the North Carolina Department of Transportation who was apparently the workplace prankster.

Sometimes, you have to trust a jury to make the right decision

01/07/2010

Most employers have severe cases of “juryphobia.” They assume that a jury will automatically side with an employee and award hundreds of thousands of dollars to right an alleged wrong. If you and your attorneys are convinced you didn’t do anything wrong, it may be best to trust a jury to hear the case and come to the same conclusion. That’s what one employer recently did.

FMLA isn’t ‘discipline shield’: Fire for unrelated actions

01/06/2010

Employees sometimes think taking FMLA leave—or even just asking for the time off—protects them from being disciplined or discharged. But Congress never intended the FMLA to act as a shield against legitimate discipline that’s unrelated to the leave. That’s why you’re free to discipline or discharge employees if you can prove you would have taken the same action regardless of the FMLA leave or request.

New job requirement can be good reason for discharge

01/06/2010

In these tough economic times, employers often have to find ways to do more with less—such as cutting some positions and adding new duties and responsibilities to others. That means some employees will no longer be qualified for their jobs.

Employee stressed out by possible discipline? That’s no reason to halt the process

01/05/2010

Go figure: Some employees get stressed out when they suspect they’re facing serious discipline or even termination. That understandable anxiety doesn’t mean you have to stop the disciplinary process. Unless the employee asks for FMLA leave or otherwise gives you enough information to indicate that she has a serious health condition—and not just nerves—you can go ahead with your investigation.

Employment Contracts

01/03/2010

HR Law 101: Some employers and employees choose to enter into an employment contract. Usually the worker is seeking job security, while the company wants to protect its trade secrets and sales territories. However, if you sign an employment contract, you may find that you’ve given away more than you bargained for …

Sample Policy: Terminations

01/01/2010

The following sample policies were excerpted from The Book of Company Policies, published by HR Specialist. Edit for your organization’s purposes. _____________________ Sample Policy 1: “There are two ways to terminate employment: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary terminations include resignations, retirement, failure to return from leave, failure to report to work for three consecutive days without […]

Evaluating employee before return to work? Know difference between medical, agility tests

12/25/2009

Under the ADA, employers aren’t allowed to subject employees to medical tests unless they can prove that the examinations are job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, they can ask employees to perform agility tests. The line between the two is difficult to find. But get it wrong, and you may have an ADA discrimination case on your hands.