Last night, after I arrived home, put my jacket away, and walked into the kitchen, something immediately caught my eye. On the kitchen table was a “Country Sweets Gourmet Cookie Dough” fundraising flyer from my son’s school.
My choice of five different flavors of raw cookie dough in a 48-ounce tub. And since it’s all in the name of fundraising…
Easily the highlight of my day. Except.
When the Fair Credit Reporting Act comes a knock knock knockin’ on HR’s door, who among you, will answer the call?
Fear not, kids. Cinch on your big boy/girl underpants! My colleague, Stacey Schor, in this post, has outlined a recent federal court decision that provides valuable guidance on how employers can comply with the strict requirements of FCRA, so that your hiring decisions are FCRA-bulletproofed.
This one goes out to all out FCRA freaks fans. Holler if you hear me!
Has the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Vance v. Ball State been keeping you up at night?
*** logs IP numbers; obtains restraining orders ***
Well, ok. I can see why some of you are sour on the 2013 Supreme Court decision holding that an employee is a “supervisor” for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
I can actually feel the daggers that some of you are staring into me.
So, please allow me to reintroduce myself. My name is H-O explain.
How to demonstrate sexual harassment
So, by now, you’ve likely read the news, first reported on Wednesday night by The New York Times reporters Michael Shear and Steven Greenhouse that “Obama Will Seek Broad Expansion of Overtime Pay”.
Messrs. Shear and Greenhouse indicated that, yesterday, President Barack Obama was to the direct the U.S. Department of Labor to “revamp its regulations to require overtime pay for several million additional fast-food managers, loan officers, computer technicians and others whom many businesses currently classify as ‘executive or professional’ employees to avoid paying them overtime.”
Possible targeted changes to the FLSA
Yesterday, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting at which it discussed, well, you read the lede. Don’t miss this one employers; the full 411 is after the jump…
That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”
One of your FMLA-eligible employees walks into HR one day and says that she has a serious health condition and would like to take time off to treat her injury. However, the employee, who has paid time off banked away, says that she’d like to dip into her bank of PTO and exhaust that without using any of her 12 weeks of FMLA.
Can your employee affirmatively decline to use FMLA leave, even if the underlying reason for seeking the leave would have invoked FMLA protection?
Last week, Justin Bieber was deposed in an action stemming from an alleged attack by his bodyguard on a member of the paparazzi. Here and pasted below is the video that’s been making the rounds on the internet:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=emsLrZg160s
So, how does this impact your workplace? Don’t let your employee witnesses ever channel their inner Bieber if deposed in a workplace lawsuit.
Late last year, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission scored a big victory when a federal judge found apparel company Abercrombie & Fitch liable for religious discrimination when it fired a Muslim employee for wearing her hijab (a religious headscarf) in the workplace, rather than accommodating her religious beliefs.
On the heels of this win, the EEOC has just issued new guidance about how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, and what steps employers can take to meet their legal responsibilities in this area.
You can view the press release here, a fact sheet here, and a FAQ here.
Back in 2011, when y’all were Tebowing, planking and winning, I was blogging about this case where an employer allegedly updated its employee’s Facebook page and tweeted from her Twitter account without her permission while she was on leave from work following a car accident.
The Stored Communications Act prohibits intentional, unauthorized access to electronically stored communications. The employer admitted that it had accessed the employee’s social media accounts. However, it claimed that it had permission because the employee left her passwords stored on a company server. So, the employer moved for summary judgment.
Opposing the motion, the employee argued that, while the company did possess the account passwords, she had told them to leave their digital fingers off of her social media accounts. This would have made the access unauthorized.
The Employer Handbook Blog