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

Terminations

Step up to a new high-stakes HR role: Stamping out conspiracies to discriminate

12/15/2009

Here’s another legal danger for HR to watch out for: The charge that a supervisor conspired to terminate employees belonging to a protected class. Employees who can show that a supervisor and someone else involved in a termination decision conspired to terminate employees of a particular race, sex or other protected classification have a separate claim beyond the traditional employment law remedies.

Is an employee’s refusal to cooperate with an internal investigation a firing offense?

12/14/2009

Q. We have an employee who has declined to cooperate in a workplace investigation into an issue that could threaten our company’s operations. Can we terminate the employee for insubordination?

Remind supervisors: Don’t assume disability

12/11/2009

An employer that assumes an employee is disabled and then fires him or even just treats him differently than other employees may end up with an ADA lawsuit. That’s because the employee may not actually be disabled—but can still sue for disability discrimination based on the employer’s presumption that he is.

Employees who don’t meet whistle-blower law requirements still have legal protection

12/11/2009

The Illinois Whistleblower Act says that employers may not retaliate against employees who disclose to a government or law enforcement agency information about alleged violations of state or federal laws and regulations. But what about employees who don’t go to an agency, but raise their concerns internally?

You can’t go wrong with a solid discharge reason

12/11/2009

You never know which employee will sue you, when or why. Everyone can probably find some reason good enough to get past the courthouse door. It’s your job to make sure you can send them right back out. The best way to do that: Always have a solid reason for disciplinary action.

Take sexual harassment complaints seriously—even if they involve past lovers

12/09/2009

Some employers wrongly believe that when co-workers end what was a consensual sexual relationship, one employee can’t later claim sexual harassment for post-breakup conduct. The dubious assumption: Any subsequent unpleasant contact between the employees was probably based on jealousy or anger over the broken relationship rather than “on account of sex.” That’s not always true.

New employee not working out? Have hiring manager handle the firing

12/09/2009

Sometimes, you have to take a chance on a job applicant because the candidate pool isn’t filled with as much talent as you would like. Everyone knows picking a marginal candidate can turn out to be a mistake. If you find you have to terminate such an employee, have the same person who made the hiring decision also make the termination decision. That reduces the chance of a costly discrimination lawsuit …

Double-check all commission agreements! You could be liable for more than you think

12/09/2009

If you pay commissions under a written compensation plan that covers commissions earned only while the employee works for your company, be careful how you handle terminations—and discussion concerning payment of further commissions. In some circumstances, you could inadvertently create additional liability for unpaid commissions …

DEED: Half of employers shirking WARN Act obligations

12/09/2009

Businesses that plan to lay off enough workers to trigger the federal WARN Act must give 60 days’ notice to employees and state officials. That’s supposed to allow state Rapid Response teams enough time to start helping find new jobs for soon-to-be displaced workers. But the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) says in many cases employer cooperation is grudging at best.

Take these 4 steps before you implement a reduction in force

12/09/2009

As the recession continues, many employers have had to turn to reductions in force as an unfortunate yet necessary cost-saving measure. Count on some of those former employees to sue. Employers considering implementing RIFs must understand the legal and practical issues that can trap the unwary. Taking these four steps can minimize the risks of lawsuits: