Today’s post is brought to you by the letter “S.” Continue reading
I’m just saying, what if you could have an employee sign some sort of a contract, maybe an employee agreement, in which the employee agreed to shorten the statute of limitations on all employment claims to six months.
Given that employees often have years in which to assert claims, the ol’ statute-of-limitations shortener could be a gold mine!
Back in the day, landing on “Community Chest” in Monopoly was second only to building hotels on Boardwalk.
But, even with inflation, neither approaches the feeling of discovering that your employer goofed by agreeing to provide you with $2,747,400 in severance pay, rather than the previously agreed-upon $80,805.97.
Yep, that happened.
Rut roh! Continue reading
It all began last week with a (possible) typographical error in a tweet from our 45th President, “Despite the constant negative press covfefe.”
But then President Trump doubled down on Twitter, “Who can figure out the true meaning of “covfefe” ??? Enjoy!” Well, his Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, told reporters, “The president and a small group of people know exactly what he meant.”
Folks, you’re in luck! As part of that small group of people, I know exactly what President Trump met. You see, “covfefe” is the solution to all of your HR-compliance problems.
About a year ago, I had a post entitled, The “E” in E-Mail stands for Exhibit. As in Exhibit A. Here’s a snippet:
As part of my respect-in-the-workplace training, I tell employees and managers that bad e-mails are like dirty diapers: they stink and they never go away.
Yeah, about that…
If you’ve ever had to address a Charging Party’s EEOC Charge of Discrimination, you know that drafting a good Position Statement, in which the specific claims of discrimination are addressed and supported with documents and facts is hella-key.
This especially holds true now that the EEOC has announced new nationwide procedures that provide for the release of a company’s Position Statement and non-confidential attachments to a Charging Party or representative upon request during the investigation of a charge of discrimination.
More litigants are requesting that their adversaries produce social media evidence during litigation. Often this information is reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence at trial.
For example, a Facebook status update about a great day from a plaintiff suing her former employer for discrimination could bear on her claim for emotional distress. Therefore, she would have to produce this status update as part of discovery if requested to do so, because, not only is the information relevant, it is within the plaintiff’s “possession, custody, or control.”
Same holds trues for a plaintiff in a personal injury action claiming that she suffered a debilitating back injury. She may have to produce recent Facebook photos of her riding on a speedboat.
Savvy lawyers today use social media to mine and collect important data about litigants. But cross that line from savvy to shady, and you may find yourself in deep do-do.
(Kinda like the blow-out I encountered when I reached inside the back of my youngest’s wetsuit at the pool this weekend to check his diaper. But different. And TMI. Anyway…)
James McCarty of the The Plain Dealer reported here last week that an Ohio prosecutor was fired for pretending to be a woman in a Facebook chat with an accused killer’s alibi witnesses in an attempt to persuade them to change their testimony.