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

Indiana

Porn on shared computer? Investigate carefully

08/14/2009

Your computer-usage policy no doubt prohibits visiting pornographic and other inappropriate sites. But what if someone surfs forbidden sites using a computer that an entire group of employees has access to? That makes it difficult to positively identify the guilty user. Your IT department can provide technical assistance so you can base your investigation and conclusions on facts.

Keep cases from escalating: When hot-headed manager blows up, order cooling-off period

08/14/2009

Even the best bosses sometimes blow up. An employee slacks off or messes up, and the manager lashes out. Everyone knows such outbursts shouldn’t happen. That doesn’t mean they won’t. How you handle the aftermath may make the difference between a jury trial and a smooth return to workplace normalcy.

Beware that bloated résumé: Extra skills don’t necessarily mean better qualified

08/14/2009

Employees who want a promotion sometimes get upset when they aren’t selected, especially if the job winds up going to someone they perceive as less skilled or talented. But if the spurned employee’s extra skills or training weren’t necessary, they aren’t particularly relevant. And they’re certainly no proof that the promotion process was tainted by bias.

Make sure promotion panels don’t know anything about candidates’ prior complaints

08/14/2009

When promoting from within, one of the best ways to protect against retaliation claims is to use a promotion panel. If possible, make sure panel members don’t know about any complaints any of the candidates might have previously filed. That way, if the employee who says he’s being retaliated against doesn’t get the job, he can’t blame it on the panel’s knowledge of his prior protected activity.

Warn bosses: One comment could ignite racial case

08/14/2009

Remind supervisors that any comments they make about race or another protected characteristic can come back to haunt the company. It doesn’t much matter whether the comments come before or after a termination decision has been made.

Separate the ‘conduct’ from the disability

07/20/2009

Some disabled employees have the mistaken notion that their disabilities give them a pass that excuses unacceptable behavior. However, there’s no duty to accommodate what is essentially conduct. For example, employers don’t have to tolerate an alcoholic who shows up at work disheveled and reeking of alcohol or someone with a mental disorder who threatens to harm co-workers.

Feel free to scale back leave, pay policies that exceed USERRA requirements

07/20/2009

Members of the armed services are protected from discrimination and have re-employment and leave rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). But the law doesn’t require employers to indefinitely continue what amount to voluntary special privileges for service members.

Feel free to reassign employees if it’s justified—you won’t be liable for retaliation

06/12/2009

Ever since the Supreme Court decided the White v. Burlington Northern case in 2004, retaliation lawsuits have been all the rage. But lately there’s been good news for employers. Courts have been refining the retaliation standard for almost five years and have begun concluding that truly minor work changes aren’t retaliation.

Warn managers and supervisors: No negative talk about military service

06/12/2009

Here’s a good way to avoid litigation: Warn all your supervisors and managers that bad-mouthing an employee’s military service can spell trouble. That’s because any disciplinary action following such talk could be viewed as evidence military service was a factor in the decision.

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.