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

Texas

Supreme Court backs employee following ‘cat’s paw’ boss bias

03/24/2011
The U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), based on the discriminatory animus of an employee who influenced, but did not make, an ultimate employment decision.

Require medical exams if they’re job-related

03/18/2011

You may have read that employers aren’t permitted to force employees to take medical exams because they could reveal a disability. While pre-employment, pre-job-offer medical exams are barred, there are times when medical exams are fine. The key is whether the exams are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Supreme Court: Check boss bias before disciplining

03/08/2011
The Supreme Court’s latest unanimous employment-law opinion found that two biased supervisors conspired to get HR to fire someone. The lesson is clear: HR must independently check supervisors’ disciplinary recommendations to ensure they have no ulterior motives.

What can employers opting out of workers’ comp do to minimize the threat of lawsuits?

03/04/2011
Q. My company is a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and has its own on-the-job employee injury benefit plan. Is there any way to decrease the likelihood of employees who receive benefits under the plan later suing the company and recovering damages related to their injuries?

Will bonuses affect employees’ ‘regular rate’ when calculating overtime pay under the FLSA?

03/04/2011
Q. We want to offer incentive bonuses to hourly workers in order to increase business and productivity. Will these bonuses affect the employees’ “regular rate” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for purposes of overtime calculation?

Supreme Court rules on third-party retaliation: Relatives protected

03/04/2011

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an employee who was fired shortly after his fiancée filed a bias charge against their employer may sue for third-party retaliation under Title VII. According to the court, the employee could be considered an “aggrieved person” because he was “well within the zone of interests sought to be protected by Title VII.” What’s the practical impact for employers?

East Texas inspector files reverse discrimination suit

03/04/2011
A former employee of Signal International has filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the oil rig construction company, claiming that he was fired because he is white.

Was she just foul-mouthed–or a victim of bias?

03/04/2011
Westward Trails Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center says it fired Evelyn Jones because she cursed at a patient at the Nacogdoches nursing home. The 67-year-old Jones says she lost her job because of her age and race.

EEOC: Houston Fire Department hostile to female firefighter

03/04/2011

The EEOC has determined that the Houston Fire Department subjected firefighter Jane Draycott to a hostile work environment when it failed to address her complaints of sex discrimination and retaliation. That finding could prove costly to the city of Houston, since Draycott is suing the department.

Disclaimer can counter employment-contract argument

03/04/2011
A disclaimer that clearly states an employee has no employment contract may be enough to kill a tortuous interference-with-contract claim.