The Employer Handbook is fast approaching its ninth month. I’ve had a blast blogging for my readers. And things appear to be running smoothly. But what do I know? I only write this stuff. I don’t have to read it. That’s up to you. We make great a team, don’t we?
So, let me know…
- What do you like so far?
Raise your hand if your east-coast business was prepared for yesterday’s earthquake.
After the jump, I’ll tell you why you may not have been ready and offer your business 16 ways to prepare for when the next disaster strikes.
* * *
(Maybe, I’m reading a little too much into an email I received from them yesterday).
Actually, The Employer Handbook has been nominated as one of the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011. If Because you want to vote for The Employer Handbook, click here. Seriously, if you like what you read, please stuff the ballot box. (You’ll need to register first with LexisNexis. But that takes 20 seconds and you can do that here.) Thank you!
On Friday night, I read the just-released National Labor Relations Board’s Acting General Counsel report on social media investigations. In fact, I read it twice cover-to-cover. (No, I won’t be winning the “Coolest Person In America In Philly On My Block In My House” Award this year).
Dorkiness aside, I was able to distill the report down to the points that employers will need to know if they hope to avoid federal scrutiny. Those details follow after the jump…
I can pinpoint the exact moment that this blog transcended to the next level of internet excellence.
It was back in late March, when I blogged here about a female bartender/server who had sued her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, for pregnancy discrimination. The retweets that day were off the heezy fo sheezy, yo. (The hyperlink is a courtesy to my NPR listeners).
***Wait. Hold on one sec. I have to take this call from “1993”. They say they want their dated hip-hop lingo back. OK, I’m back.***
When I first wrote about the Wild Beaver Saloon, the question was whether a business could make an employment decision based on the preferences of co-workers, the employer, clients or customers. I concluded, in this instance, that the Beave could not get away with it.
Well, the case ended last week. So was I right? Click past the jump to find out if I know my stuff…
Note: The original working title for this post was “Yo! A-Yo! Federal courts in Philly and NYC get all catty and stuff”. I mention this not because it’s a recycled New Yorker headline, but because it puts into context the gratuitous shots I take at NY sports teams sprinkled into this post.
Back in March of this year, the United States Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital recognized that an employee may have a tenable claim for discrimination under USERRA even if the person who fired him did not discriminate. That is, if a supervisor’s bias motivates a firing — even if the firing is carried out by someone else who is both squeaky-clean and higher up in the food chain — then the firing is discriminatory. This is known as the “cat’s paw” theory.
Same goes for the MetsSince March, other courts have weighed in. As you know from reading this blog, on June, the Tenth Circuit held that the Staub decision applies to claims of age bias.
And, this month, we get cat’s paw decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. One of ’em is good for employers. The other, not so much. More on these decisions and what they will mean for local businesses after the jump…
* * *
In yesterday’s post at The Employer Handbook, I discussed a recent federal-court decision to demonstrate why it is crucial for employers to document workplace performance and misconduct.
Today, after the jump, I have another federal-court decision — one in which an employer’s failure to properly paper an employee’s leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, translates into big-time headaches.
Management-side employment lawyers preach it until they are blue in the face: companies should always document employee performance and disciplinary issues.
Why is this so important? A real-world example follows after the jump…
Sex sells.
My most popular posts at The Employer Handbook — that’s based on you reading them (you’re all sick I tells ya, sick!!! And remember, I’m logging IP addresses) — generally involve some element of sexual behavior. You have the Brazilian self-stimulator. Actually, make that sexual behaviour — there’s the Australian hotel sex romp.
One of my readers asked if I’d heard about the recent sexual harassment lawsuit in Utah (the home of sex in a supply closet), in which a woman alleged, among other things, that her supervisor distributed a work schedule that included included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.” Come on, now. You know me! Just this week, I read five articles (here, here, here, here, here) about it. You can find 23 more articles about “No bra Thursday” here.
“Guess my high score in Leisure Suit Larry.”
Then there’s the NY Post story (naturally) about a 23-year-old lesbian who claims that seven staff members in her real estate office groped, slapped, flashed, fondled and subjected her to racial abuse and death threats. One of the staffers allegedly offered her $60 for oral sex and told her all Puerto Rican girls are good at it.
Me? I like writing about these cases because it’s a good excuse to use stock sexual harassment photos from Google Images — like the one on the right, which, given the size of the shoulder pads in the lady’s jacket and the dimensions of that desktop computer — no doubt housing a 5.25 inch floppy disk drive — is a screencap from L.A. Law.
How about one more sexual harassment case for ya? This time, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals gets in on the act and reverses summary judgment in favor of an employer where the plaintiff alleged sexual harassment and retaliation when her boss forcibly kissed her, fondled her leg, propositioned her, asked her sexually explicit questions, described sexual activities he wished to perform, and then, after she spurned the advances and filed a harassment complaint, fired her (on the day she complained).
More on this and, of course, lessons for employers, after the jump…
* * *
From TMZ.com:
Rapper The Game could face criminal charges after he tweeted the phone number of the sheriff’s station in Compton, CA — but told people it was the number to call for an internship — causing the station’s phone lines to become overrun with calls and delaying emergency services.
…
The Employer Handbook Blog