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

Terminations

Not all harassers need immediate firing

01/11/2010

If you have a robust anti-harassment policy and act fast to stop co-worker sexual harassment, you usually won’t be liable for that harassment. But that doesn’t mean you must automatically fire everyone who harasses a co-worker. You can use a more measured approach, including warnings and counseling. If that doesn’t work, then it may be time to terminate the perpetrator.

Firing employee who complained of harassment? Don’t let alleged harasser play any role

01/11/2010

Here’s a rule of thumb to follow: An alleged harasser should have no part in a later termination decision involving his or her accuser. Giving the alleged harasser any role in the firing is almost certain to spur a retaliation lawsuit, even if it turns out the harassment claim doesn’t stick.

Wasted at work? You don’t have to tolerate it!

01/11/2010

Some employers foolishly worry that they may violate the ADA or the FMLA if they enforce a zero-tolerance policy that forbids employees to work under the influence of alcohol. The simple reality is that employers have every right to expect workers to show up sober in the morning. Furthermore, being an alcoholic is no excuse.

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.

Unemployment Insurance

01/08/2010

HR Law 101: Under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and state laws, employers are obligated to pay payroll taxes to provide unemployment compensation to employees who lose their jobs. By understanding how the system works, you may be able to cut your state tax rate through efficient claims control …

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.

OK to withhold commissions from employees who violate fiduciary obligations

01/07/2010

The Texas Payday Act allows employees to sue for commissions earned but unpaid after termination. But that doesn’t mean that employees are always owed such commissions. If they violated their fiduciary duty to their employers by disclosing confidential information to a competitor, it’s legitimate to withhold pay.

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.

Workplace strife? Transfer is fair solution

01/07/2010

When people have a history of conflict, it makes sense to ensure they don’t have to interact with one another. How you go about separating them may mean the difference between staying out of court or losing a costly successful retaliation or discrimination lawsuit.