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

Alabama

Offering new employee higher pay than incumbent of opposite sex? Document why

07/13/2010
Sometimes, you really do need to recruit someone from outside the organization—someone who may already be earning more than you usually pay your employees. When making a hire like that, make sure you document why you chose to top existing salaries, especially if the new hire is the opposite sex of any incumbents.

When an abusive supervisor is equally intolerable to everyone, is it harassment?

07/13/2010
As an HR professional, you’re constantly being called on to decide whether an employee’s rights have been violated. Take, for example, a manager who does a lot of indiscriminate yelling. As long as he  doesn’t say anything outrageously linked to sex or race, there may be nothing illegal about the behavior. But explaining that to the affected employees can be difficult.

Make it one of HR’s goals: Ensure everyone gets training on harassment

07/13/2010

Courts have long said that employers are supposed to be proactive about preventing and stopping sexual harassment in the workplace. Employers know or should know that simply having a sexual harassment policy in place isn’t enough—they have to aggressively enforce that policy. What employers may not fully realize is that no one within the organization is exempt from education, training and discipline.

Post all open positions to avoid litigation

07/13/2010

Here’s an easy way to prevent a failure-to-hire lawsuit: Routinely advertise all open positions and let employees and applicants know how to look for opportunities. Otherwise, you could be sued by an employee or potential applicant, alleging that she would have applied if she had only known about the opening.

Just quitting isn’t ‘constructive discharge’

07/13/2010

Some employees have heard through the legal grapevine that if the going gets tough at work, they can just get going. They believe they can up and quit—and then turn around and sue, claiming that they had no choice but to leave because they were suffering retaliation for taking some protected action. This is an example of “constructive discharge.” But conditions have to be pretty onerous before the tactic works.

Favoring clear accent might not be discrimination

06/16/2010

Students often complain about foreign professors whose accents they have trouble understanding. Those concerns can be a legitimate reason for a university to hire a candidate with better communications skills. That’s true even though accent discrimination can be construed as national-origin discrimination.

Independent review protects against hidden supervisor bias

06/16/2010

Despite your best efforts, a rogue supervisor occasionally slips through. He may harbor discriminatory attitudes that can color his termination and disciplinary decisions. But you can cut that chain by doing a little independent digging into what really happened. Then document your efforts to get both sides of the story.

Don’t tolerate threats, even if they occur during conversation about possible discrimination

06/16/2010

Employees who complain about alleged discrimination are protected from retaliation for complaining. That protection, however, isn’t unlimited. There’s a huge difference, for example, between an employee who calmly reports that he has been discriminated against and someone whose complaints sound more like threats of physical harm.

Stop lawsuits before they start: Set clear process for posting job opportunities

06/16/2010

It seems logical enough: Employees shouldn’t be able to sue over promotions they never applied for. But in some cases where positions were never posted, employees have successfully sued, alleging they would have applied had they known there was an opening. Fortunately, the 11th Circuit won’t allow those employees an automatic win …

Retaliation? Not if bias claim was bogus

06/14/2010
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a jury’s $300,000 retaliation award, reasoning that the complaint that was the basis for the retaliation claim wasn’t based on a good-faith belief that discrimination had occurred.