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

Discrimination / Harassment

Keep lawsuit clock on your side: Make sure employees know exact date of employment action

04/25/2011

Employees only have a short period of time to file their initial dis­crimi­na­tion claims. The clock starts ticking as soon as the employee knows or should have known about some material, potentially adverse job change. That’s why you need to be absolutely clear to employees when you make a job change—and note it in your files.

Beware retaliation long after bias complaint

04/25/2011

Think retaliation won’t be a problem because plenty of time has passed since an employee complained about alleged discrimination? Think again! Always be on the lookout for possible retaliation, no matter how long it has been since the initial complaint.

Medical exams: When can you require them?

04/25/2011

You may have heard that employers aren’t permitted to force employees to submit to medical exams because they could reveal a disability. And courts often see impromptu medical exams as thinly veiled attempts to push employees out the door. While pre-employment, pre-job-offer medical exams are barred, there are times when medical exams for existing employees are fine.

New bill would ban job bias based on unemployment status

04/22/2011
New Jersey this year became the first state to pass a law that forbids employers from requiring job applicants to be currently employed. Now legislation introduced in Congress—the Fair Employment Act of 2011—would amend Title VII to add “unemployed status” to the list of categories protected from job discrimination.

Are there any legal issues to consider now that we’re hiring only ‘careful’ workers?

04/20/2011
Q. Recently, several employees suffered work-related injuries shortly after we hired them. As a result, our workers’ compensation premiums have soared. The company’s CEO, in an effort to avoid this problem, has directed us to hire only “careful” workers in the future. Is this legal?

Federal government employer? You are liable for interest on back pay if you discriminate

04/20/2011
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Back Pay Act allows judges to order interest payments to federal government employees who win discrimination lawsuits if the employees were affected by “an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action which resulted in the withdrawal or reduction of all or part” of the employee’s pay.

Weed out substance abuse with ‘one-strike’ rule

04/20/2011
Many employers have adopted strict drug and alcohol testing programs for all new hires—and strictly bar employment of anyone who tests positive. Now the 9th Circuit has ruled that applying the rule to a recovering addict is legal unless that addict can somehow prove that the rule discriminates against a class of disabled individuals—namely, recovering addicts.

Carefully track every accommodation request

04/20/2011
Here’s a tip that can save your organization from a large disability discrimination verdict sometime down the line: Whenever an employee discloses that he may need some sort of disability accommodation, make sure you carefully document the request and your response.

Supreme Court’s big retaliation ruling already a factor

04/19/2011
When the U.S. Supreme Court speaks, employers better listen! The ink was barely dry on the High Court’s retaliation decision in Thompson v. North American Stainless when a federal judge considering a Florida case expanded the opinion’s reach.

Employing Minors: Federal Law & Legal Best Practices

04/19/2011
Login Email Address Password I forgot my password To continue reading this page, become an HR Specialist Premium Plus member today! Your subscription includes: Ask the Attorney: Answers to your HR legal questions Compliance Guidance: Access to 7,000 HR news articles, updated daily, sorted by state State-by-State: Summaries of HR laws in all 50 states […]