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

Employment Law

Always consider how jury might see retroactive actions

06/12/2009

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a long-running case that a jury acted properly when it concluded an employer’s retroactive termination of health insurance violated the FMLA.

Declining to cooperate with investigation isn’t protected

06/12/2009

Before an employee can sue for retaliation, she has to show she participated in some form of protected activity—filing an EEOC or internal discrimination complaint, for example. But what about refusing to cooperate with an employer’s investigation?

You’re now strictly liable for supervisor sexual harassment

06/12/2009

In a significant ruling interpreting the Illinois Human Rights Act, the Illinois Supreme Court recently expanded employers’ potential exposure to sexual harassment claims and damages by holding that an employer is strictly liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor, even if the supervisor does not directly supervise the employee who is harassed.

Does the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act protect employees other than women?

06/12/2009

Q. Carlos, a longtime Latino employee, frequently complains that he is paid less than his white, non-Latino counterparts. He blames this pay discrepancy on a previous supervisor who allegedly denied him several promotions in the late 1990s because of his national origin. I have heard about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Could it affect us in this case?

Bias settlement chips $500,000 out of Ceisel Masonry

06/12/2009

Suburban Chicago-based Ceisel Masonry has settled a race and national-origin discrimination suit with the EEOC for $500,000.

Track all efforts to accommodate disabilities

06/11/2009

Employers have an obligation to engage with disabled employees in an interactive accommodations process. But exactly how do you go about proving you complied when the employee says you didn’t try to help? Your best approach is to track all your efforts to accommodate, including every contact with the employee, whether by phone, e-mail, memo or snail mail.

Telling truth about ex-worker isn’t defamation

06/11/2009

When talking to a former employee’s prospective new employer, are you afraid to provide truthful information or state an opinion? Doing so probably won’t earn you a defamation lawsuit in Minnesota.

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.

Employer’s perceived threat isn’t enough to excuse employee’s late discrimination filing

06/11/2009

Employees who want to file a discrimination complaint have to meet tight deadlines. They have just 90 days after receiving an EEOC “right-to-sue” letter to start their lawsuits. A perceived threat from an employer —such as a statement that it will “dig up” everything it can about the employee—doesn’t excuse missing the deadline.