Search
Cut your hair, Mattingly!
On Saturday, I ran — and I use that term, “ran,” generously — my first Spartan Race.
Maybe, the better past-tense verb is “completed.” But, I’ll take it.
On Saturday, I ran — and I use that term, “ran,” generously — my first Spartan Race.
Maybe, the better past-tense verb is “completed.” But, I’ll take it.
If your Saturday night consists of nerding up on HR compliance with both the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, why fight it? We’re kindred spirits. So, take my hand…
Or, maybe just email me — yes, email is better — for the scintillating PowerPoint debuting today at the 2016 PA SHRM State Conference.
And prepare for a magical 9/24.
Earlier in the Summer, I blogged here about this federal court opinion, recognizing that a convenience store may have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by firing a diabetic cashier.
The facts showed that the diabetic cashier twice violated the store’s grazing policy by removing bottles of orange juice from the store cooler without immediately paying for them. Except, she may have taken the OJ, because the store otherwise refused to accommodate her disability. Continue reading
In 2014, President Obama signed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. Folks like me on the management-side refer to this Order as the Blacklisting rules. In general terms (I’ll get a little more specific below), the Blacklisting rules require prospective federal contractors and subcontractors to disclose anything that may appear on a laundry list of labor-and-employment-law faux pas.
Last month, the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) issued the final rules and guidance implementing the Executive Order.
If you read on, I’ll tell you who’s covered by the Blacklisting rules (hint: lots of government-contractor employers), what they say, and when they take effect. I’ll also include some tips about how you can proactively prepare for these Blacklisting rules now.
Had I represented the plaintiff in this case, I would’ve found a way to incorporate this .gif into my brief opposing the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
Last month, Massachusetts passed a new law, which will take effect in July 2018, and make it illegal for employers to ask about a job applicant’s salary history before making an offer of employment. As Stacy Cowley at The New York Times reports (here), the impetus for the new law is to reduce the wage gap between men and women:
By barring companies from asking prospective employees how much they earned at their last jobs, Massachusetts will ensure that the historically lower wages and salaries assigned to women and minorities do not follow them for their entire careers. Companies tend to set salaries for new hires using their previous pay as a base line.
Now, three members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the first woman to chair the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), plan to introduce similar legislation federally.
165,000 reasons meaning 165,000 dollars. But, you probably figured that out.
Continue reading
You received a complaint of sexual harassment from a female employee against a male co-worker.
So, you promptly investigate, during which you interview the complainant and the alleged harasser, and review documents. When the investigation ends, you conclude that the female complainant — not the male co-worker — was the sexual harasser. So, you promptly fire the female employee.
Legally, did you do anything wrong? Well, notwithstanding the factual twist, it doesn’t seem that way. But things aren’t always as they seem. And I’d get a day off from blogging if this one were that straightforward
There was a time when I got that question from employer-clients more times than Tony Romo’s chokes in December.