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

Retaliation

Investigations: You can (and should) demand silence from all participants

11/26/2010
Water-cooler talk about alleged discrimination or harassment can poison a workplace. That’s why your company policy should require all participants in investigations (including witnesses) to keep quiet about the issue. That way, rumors and exaggerated claims won’t influence other employees who haven’t yet told investigators their side of the story.

When employee sues, beware whistle-blower add-on that alleges violation of public policy

11/24/2010

New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act protects employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing. That can include reporting conduct that the employee reasonably believes violates “a law, rule or regulation … or a clear mandate of public policy.” The employee doesn’t have to get very specific, especially claiming he blew the whistle on conduct that violates public policy.

Can deciding not to discipline lead to court?

11/22/2010

It happens: A supervisor wants to discipline an employee, but HR or upper management nixes the idea because it knows something the boss doesn’t. Perhaps the employee had suffered discrimination in the past and was placed in a new position for a fresh start. Be prepared for legal fallout if you wind up disciplining the supervisor.

The best defense against bias lawsuits: Equal treatment for all your employees

11/15/2010
An employee who thinks her supervisor is out to get her may be on the lookout for perceived discrimination. She can turn a negative performance appraisal into a bias lawsuit. The only way to prepare for surprise lawsuits is to consistently treat all employees alike and document that fair treatment. For example, performance evaluations should include as many objective measures as possible, making it easier to compare employees.

Good documentation wins cases–even sensitive ones

11/15/2010
Having complete records of why you disciplined an employee often gives a court the information it needs to decide whether you’ve discriminated—or even retaliated against someone who has leveled serious charges against you.

Divided court may mean trouble for employers

11/11/2010
A decision by a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals may mean changes are coming for employers accused of tolerating racial bias. Two of three judges on the panel concluded that an employer wasn’t liable for a series of co-worker comments that were arguably racist.

Use hotline to receive employee complaints, prove when litigation clock started ticking

11/08/2010

Courts increasingly insist that employees meet deadlines for filing EEOC or other discrimination complaints. The law allows employees just a short period of time to start the lawsuit process after an employer’s adverse decision. Smart employers have systems that precisely track internal complaints. With those in place, employers can more easily argue that the employee waited too long to sue.

Southern Ohio contractor settles race bias lawsuit

11/08/2010

Mareo R. Allen will get his job back at Mike Enyart & Sons Inc., after the construction firm—located in South Point, near the West Virginia border—agreed to settle an EEOC race discrimination suit filed on Allen’s behalf. Allen alleged he was fired in retaliation for complaining about racial harassment while working on a sewer-line installation project.

Mineral Met hung out to dry following noose incident

11/08/2010
Chemical company Mineral Met has agreed to pay $440,000 to settle an EEOC race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed on behalf of black employees at its Cleveland plant.

Don’t expect heroic catch-up after FMLA leave

11/08/2010

Exempt employees are generally expected to work as long and as hard as they need to in order to get their jobs done. But that doesn’t mean employers should expect exempt employees returning from FMLA leave to burn the midnight oil to get caught up if there was no plan in place to pick up the slack during the absence. Insisting on that is an invitation to be sued for retaliation.