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

Policies / Handbooks

NLRB, EEOC confidentiality stance muddles investigations

08/26/2013

The NLRB and EEOC are actively enforcing the position that a blanket policy requiring confidentiality during investigations violates federal labor and employment law. That means employers must proceed carefully and thoughtfully when making confidentiality requests during investigations.

Balance the pluses and minuses of switching to PTO banks

08/26/2013
Some employers have retooled the traditional method of setting paid time off in separate categories by folding vacation, personal or sick leave entitlements into one “bank.”  So-called paid time off (PTO) programs offer benefits for employers and employees alike, but there are some potential pitfalls if you are not careful.

Can we fire admitted drug user, or should we offer time off for treatment?

08/20/2013
Q. We have an employee who has been performing poorly and who has shown up for work appearing to be intoxicated. In a discussion with a manager, the employee admitted that he was currently using cocaine and it was affecting his personal and work life. We haven’t done a drug test on the employee, given his admission of drug use. We want to fire the employee, but we aren’t sure if the FMLA or any other law requires us to give him time off to undergo treatment?

Employers win Nassar battle, but retaliation war continues

08/20/2013
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar that, to win a retaliation lawsuit, an employee must show the employer’s intent to retaliate against the employee for exercising Title VII anti-discrimination rights was the “but for” cause of the challenged action, not just a motivating factor. As important a victory as the Nassar ruling was for employers, it’s important to recognize that the retaliation war is ongoing.

Truth is, a handbook needs an honesty policy

08/20/2013

Nearly one in five U.S. workers admit to lying at the office at least once a week, according to a CareerBuilder survey. A quarter of hiring managers say they’ve fired an em­­ployee for being dishonest. In such cases, it’s much easier to discipline and terminate an employee when you have a general honesty, ethics or misrepresentation clause in your employee handbook.

Supreme Court rejects EEOC’s broad definition of ‘supervisor’

08/13/2013
In a major victory for employers, the Supreme Court in June ruled that, in Title VII cases, only someone with the power to take “tangible employment action” can be considered a supervisor. The Court’s decision in Vance v. Ball State will make it harder for employees to sue for supervisor bias, a claim that carries strict employer liability.

Anti-harassment policy, training are meaningless if supervisors decide to ignore them

08/13/2013
When a co-worker makes himself a nuisance (or worse), a robust anti-harassment policy, a clear reporting method and swift and sure action will cut liability in almost all cases. But what if the policy isn’t en­­forced or a supervisor learns about the harassment but ignores the problem and doesn’t take action? Then all bets are off.

HR: Corporate America’s social media cops

08/12/2013
HR takes the lead in enforcing employer policies regulating how employees use social media, according to research by the Society for Human Resource Management.

‘Nonterritorial’ workplace allows maximum employee choice

08/05/2013
Some lucky employees have all kinds of options when choosing where to get their work done. Their em­­ployers have embraced what I call the “nonterritorial workplace.” It allows employees to work wherever they will be most productive on any given day.

EEOC seeks to block book company’s severance releases

07/30/2013
North Carolina-based national book distributor Baker & Taylor faces challenges to language in the release it includes in all its severance packages. The EEOC claims the release violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by forcing employees to sign “broad, misleading and unenforceable” agreements to receive severance pay.