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

Louisiana

Courts say, ‘Enough!’: Employees must file all related claims at same time

12/03/2009

Courts are cracking down on serial lawsuits, and the result is good news for employers. A former employee who sues and then loses his case can’t keep coming up with new claims to base new lawsuits on. If the new claims are based on the same set of facts—even if they involve an entirely different legal angle—courts are ruling the claims should have been brought together.

Retaliation applies to former employees, too

09/08/2009

Here’s a potential trap you may not have considered: Punishing a former employee may be retaliation, too. That means that you must carefully consider anything you do involving a former employee before you act.

Of good faith and gut instinct: Fire employee who falsely claims discrimination

09/08/2009

It’s frustrating when an employee continually claims to be the victim of discrimination while internal investigations show that just isn’t so. If an employer is confident the employee’s charges are false, it can terminate the employee. That’s true even if you turn out to be wrong—because what matters is your good-faith belief that the employee made up the discrimination claims.

How to show you don’t discriminate: Track all discipline and punish equitably

09/08/2009

At some point, a former employee will sue your organization for discrimination. The typical argument: Someone not in the same protected class as the employee was treated more leniently. How will you show that’s not true?

You don’t have to pay foreign workers’ visa fees or transportation costs

09/08/2009

Employers that need seasonal employees often rely on foreign workers to fill those slots. Workers from other nations must apply for an H-2B visa before coming to the United States to work. Until now, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had not yet decided whether expenses related to H-2B workers’ travel to the United States had to be reimbursed by the employer. It has now decided that they do not.

Compare disciplinary records before firing

08/04/2009

Employers know they are not supposed to discriminate against employees based on protected characteristics such as race, age or sex. But HR can’t be everywhere, and in large organizations, it may be hard to monitor equal treatment. A centralized discipline-tracking system can help you check for possible hidden discrimination by comparing proposed discipline against past discipline.

You don’t have to accept employee’s offer to submit to a lie detector test

08/04/2009

An employee facing discipline may bristle if you choose to believe someone else’s version of what happened instead of his own. He may even offer to take a lie detector test to prove what he’s saying is true. You don’t have to accept that offer.

‘Get real’ with job reviews; don’t fluff them up

07/08/2009

You and the supervisors at your organization have read horror stories of negative performance reviews spawning lawsuits from disgruntled employees. As a result, some supervisors may shy away from rating someone lower than his or her colleagues. That fear is one main reason too many reviews are positive even if performance is average or poor. The better thing to do is to urge your supervisors to “get real” with reviews.

Don’t rush to judge accommodation requests; ADA requires interactive give-and-take

07/08/2009

Employees who qualify as “disabled” under the ADA have the right to reasonable accommodations to allow them to perform the essential functions of their jobs. But choosing those accommodations requires an “interactive process” between employer and employee. Employers that rush to judgment about the alleged disability or the accommodation request will risk legal trouble.

Beware vengeful boss’s shadowy retaliation

06/01/2009

Even if someone else in the management hierarchy actually terminates an employee, a supervisor who’s seemingly had it in for the employee can still cause a world of legal headaches for the employer. This is the so-called “cat’s paw” legal theory, which holds that employers are liable if they approve a recommendation that is based on illegal motives such as retaliation.