From time to time, employers discharge employees because they’re “not a good fit” or “not a team player.” While these may be perfectly good reasons for ending someone’s employment, be aware that in some situations courts or jurors may believe the employer is using that explanation as a way to conceal a discriminatory motive.
Car dealerships must be a Mecca for pranks. The combination of substantial periods of downtime with a lively sales staff leads to workplace fun. But what happens when things turn ugly, and someone gets hurt? Does the employer bear any responsibility?
Recently, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Barrett v. Salt Lake County that emphasized the importance of not retaliating against employees who engage in protected conduct.
Hard to believe, but this spring was the first time an Oklahoma case answered the question whether offensive language directed by an employee toward a supervisor disqualifies the fired employee from receiving unemployment benefits. Like many employment questions, the answer is not as clear cut as you might expect. Throw-down at the car dealership Jeffrey […]
If you have never heard of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, you very likely own or work for a private company that is not publicly traded. Until recently, you had no reason to concern yourself with the Act. However, after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision, you need to familiarize yourself with the Act and its protections for whistleblowers.
Employers are well aware of their obligation to act promptly to stop harassment or discriminatory behavior in the workplace when it is committed by employees. But this obligation can be more extensive. Employers are required to maintain a harassment-free workplace, and that can mean addressing inappropriate or harassing behavior directed toward employees by third parties, […]
It is rumored that President Reagan once referred to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) as Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam. ERISA serves important purposes in our society, but it also presents tremendous challenges and potential liabilities for good-intentioned employers who merely want to provide nice benefits to their employees.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT »
Advances in technology require another look at telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals revived an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) suit brought on behalf of an ex-Ford Motor Company worker, showing that courts are warming to telecommuting as an ADA accommodation. As a result of the decision, more employees are likely to ask to work from home.