“Damn you, Department of Labor! It’s 12:00:01 on March 8, 2013. I keep refreshing this stupid site and nothing is happening! I NEED FORMS!!!!”
— Absolutely no one in HR.
Actually, the forms have been available for some time now, slacker.
I had two topics on the brain to blog about:
{Go take a bath right now to cleanse yourself of the employment-law dorkness that hit you from reading No. 2}
Instead, after the jump, I have, well, you read the title to this post. These are my tweets (and several retweets) from the “EEOC Overview and HR Mixer” I attended yesterday — hashtag #ubernerd #EEOCHR
{Better grab the soap and turn on that bath again. You’ve been warned.}
This Sunday, Daylight Savings Time begins, as we push the clocks forward one hour at 2:00 AM on March 10, 2013.
Did someone say Clocks?
How does the time change affect the manner in which you pay hourly non-exempt employees who work the graveyard shift? I’ll let the Department of Labor explain:
Yesterday, I discussed some pending federal legislation that would expand the FMLA to cover part-time employees. Now, I hear that another bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to prohibit the use of consumer credit checks against prospective and current employees for the purposes of making adverse employment decisions.
A copy of the Act and more details on employer credit checks after the jump…
* * *
Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles.
Consequently, part-time employees generally do not qualify for FMLA leave because they do not meet the 1,250-hour requirement.
However, a new bill introduced last month in the U.S. House of Representatives would change that if signed into law. It’s called the Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act of 2013 and you can download a copy of it here.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued this press release in which it sought your feedback to improve its internal processes for investigating and conciliating charges of discrimination.
Well, the deadline is today.
Eek! Sorry, I got distracted remastering goat remixes should have reminded you earlier.
Today we have a guest blogger at The Employer Handbook. It’s Shannon Dorvall. Shannon is a practicing Los Angeles criminal attorney. She is a graduate of the University of Montana law school, and has argued cases in front of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. When she isn’t writing about law or actually practicing it, Shannon enjoys perfecting her cooking and catching up with a good book
(Want to guest blog at The Employer Handbook? Email me).
Philadelphia may be poised now to follow in the footsteps of other states and municipalities that have passed similar laws to regulate what appears to be a non-existent problem.
I’ll lay it out for you after the jump…
* * *
Duh, right?
Still, a federal appellate court recently reminded us (here) that, indeed, bad things happen when, every week for several months, a male supervisor tells his female subordinate that her husband is “not taking care of [her] in bed.”
Though not threatening, they were more than merely offensive. For a male to say to a female employee under his supervision that her husband was “not taking care of [her] in bed” is the sort of remark that can readily be found to be a solicitation for sexual relations coupled with a claim of sexual prowess and can just as readily be found to have been perceived as such by the female employee. The weekly repetition of such a remark over several weeks only served to reenforce its offensive meaning and to make sexual intimidation, ridicule, and insult a pervasive part of Desardouin’s workplace, effectively changing the terms and conditions of her employment….The allegations of repeated solicitation of sexual relations in a vulgar and humiliating manner suffice to warrant a trial.
Over the weekend, I read this article from Kara Swisher on AllThingsD.com, in which she reports that Yahoo!, under its new leadership, will implement a no-telecommuting rule, effective June 1.
Ms. Swisher posted a copy of the internal Yahoo! memorandum to its employees, in which the company underscores the “critical” need to be at the office versus working form home where “speed and quality are often compromised.”
Sounds good in theory. But I have a little monkey-wrench.
The Employer Handbook Blog