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

Firing

Employee can be AWOL even if he phones in

12/06/2010

Many public employees assume rules against being absent without leave protect them from termination as long as they call in. But the Ohio Civil Service Act makes it clear: “[U]nexcused failure to appear for duty as scheduled” may be considered job abandonment if it lasts for 10 days. Calling in doesn’t matter.

Consider uniform, ADEA-compliant severance and rights-waiver releases–even if age isn’t factor

12/06/2010
There’s a way to make it easier to get severance agreements for older workers to stick. Instead of a general severance agreement for most employees, and a special ADEA-compliant one for older workers, use a uniform agreement that complies with the ADEA for all severance agreements. That’s what one employer recently did. When the former employee who signed the agreement tried to get out of it, the court refused.

Head off harassment suits: Review all firings

12/06/2010
Quid pro quo harassment cases, in which a supervisor makes a pass at a subordinate and then punishes her if she rejects the advance, are hard for employers to defend. Your best bet is prevention. Institute a review process for all adverse employment actions such as demotions or terminations. Require a second signature before any firing becomes final.

Document reason for terminations after FMLA

12/06/2010

Generally, employers don’t need a reason to terminate an at-will employee. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t carefully document how, why and when you made the decision—even if you don’t plan to share the information with the employee. Documentation is especially crucial if you are terminating an employee who is returning from FMLA leave.

Remind bosses about legal risk of ‘make workers so miserable they quit’ strategy

12/03/2010

Some supervisors wrongly assume that employees can’t sue if they quit—only if they’re fired. That makes some bosses think the best way to get rid of overly litigious employees is to make life so horrible that they quit. That’s not smart. Employees who find working conditions so intolerable that they have no choice but to quit can still sue for constructive discharge.

Are we liable for defamation if we make allegations during an unemployment comp hearing?

12/01/2010
Q. We fired an employee for stealing company property. While we didn’t catch her red-handed, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming and we felt comfortable letting her go. The employee filed an unemployment compensation claim that we contested, and now a hearing has been scheduled before an appeals referee. We would like to say at the hearing that the employee is a thief, but we’re afraid we’ll face a defamation claim because we can’t absolutely prove this charge. Would that be a well-founded concern?

Comments cost boss his job, may cost company more

12/01/2010
A former employee of H&W Industrial Services in Longview is suing the painting and cleaning contractor for sexual discrimination and harassment after a supervisor allegedly made comments about her sexual orientation.

Same offense, different discipline? Back it up

12/01/2010

Your progressive discipline probably gives you some flexibility to hand out different punishment, depending on the seriousness of the employee misconduct. As a practical matter, that means you must decide whether what one employee does is more serious than another’s similar transgression. Make sure you’re able to explain why one offense was worse than another and deserved harsher punishment.

Ho Ho No! Don’t force wearing of Santa hats

11/30/2010
A Jehovah’s Witness was fired from her department store job after she refused to wear a Santa hat while wrapping Christmas gifts. The problem: Her religious beliefs didn’t allow it. Now the EEOC wants a judge to decide whether the store should get coal in its stocking this Christmas.

Physical therapy not always sign of disability

11/30/2010
Employees who need to take time off to attend physical therapy to deal with an injury may believe they’re disabled under the ADA. And they assume the time off must be a reasonable accommodation. That’s not necessarily true.