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

Employment Law

You can require reservists to arbitrate USERRA claims

08/01/2006

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects the rights of soldiers and reservists who are called to active duty or training and want to return to their jobs once their service is over. But these rights aren’t without limits …

Head-Office decision won’t insulate company from liability

08/01/2006

Don’t think that leaving the final firing decision to someone in company headquarters will shield your organization from a discrimination lawsuit. Even if the ultimate decision-maker doesn’t know the race, sex or age of the employee in question, the fired employee can still file a discrimination claim if he or she can point to lower-level bias that tainted the decision …

Be on guard for often-Overlooked ‘Associated with’ claims

08/01/2006

A frequently disregarded ADA provision often catches employers by surprise. The ADA, which prohibits discrimination of disabled people at work, also bans discrimination against employees because they "associate with" someone who is disabled …

Thinking about settling a lawsuit? Do it early

08/01/2006

When it comes to employment-law cases, if you think your organization will settle the case (rather than go to trial), do it as early in the discussions as possible. It could end up saving you big bucks …

What does broad new definition of ‘Retaliation’ mean to you?

08/01/2006

Expect this summer’s blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Burlington Northern v. White, to swell the number of retaliation complaints and legal claims …

Handling ‘No-Match’ letters: Heed new DHS guidance

08/01/2006

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), employers must verify the employment eligibility of all new hires within three days of the date of employment. Both employer and employee must sign an I-9 form that lists the identifying documents the employee presented to verify his or her eligibility. The law is now enforced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) …

Layoffs: Walk a fine line to avoid age-Bias laws

08/01/2006

Q. We’re a small business (just eight employees) and haven’t laid anyone off. But business is slow and we need to restructure. We have an employee who has worked here part time (12 hours per week) for 25 years. She is 65 years old. We have one other part-timer (10 hours per week) who has worked here just one year. We’d like to lay off both part-time employees and keep the full-time employees. Can we do that? —P.U., Georgia

State law dictates smoking-Ban ability

08/01/2006

Q. We run a carry-out/catering kitchen. Can we legally tell all of our employees and customers that they can’t smoke on the property? —L.D., Maryland

Consider access to personnel file even if not required

08/01/2006

Q. We fired an employee based on an eyewitness account of theft. We documented that report and put it in the ex-employee’s personnel file. That person has now hired an attorney and asked to see the file. We feel that we have no obligation to respond. Do we have to turn it over without a subpoena? —E. I.  

Overly specific discipline policy can spark liability

08/01/2006

Q. I’m the HR director, and our discipline policy is very complicated and has several different categories of offenses. It says that if employees commit offenses that may result in suspensions of more than three days, employees are allowed a pre-disciplinary counseling conference. Now, my manager thinks that conference should be skipped if the employee has already been counseled for a prior offense in the past 12 months. I’m concerned that this deviates from our policy. Can we do this? —S.D., Illinois