In the world of Human Resources, “hire slow, fire fast” generally holds true to avoid just about any lawsuit.
Unfortunately, for one NJ employer, it didn’t get the memo. And now it finds itself having to defend against FMLA interference and retaliation claims at trial.
What did this employer do wrong and how can you avoid making the same mistake? Find out after the jump…
Want another reason not to enter into a long-term contract with an employee? Click through…
* * *
You’re looking to hire a new salesperson. Scott Salesperson comes in to interview. He currently works for your top competitor.
“Scott, do you have a non-competition agreement?”
“No.”
“Scott, do you have a confidentiality agreement?”
“No. In fact, I have a list of my own customers that I could sell to if you hire me.”
Sounds good, right. But, before hiring Scott, do you have any obligation to independently verify the facts that Scott has represented?
New Jersey employers will definitely want to click through because, last week, the New Jersey Supreme Court answered…
* * *
One of my favorite reads on NJ employment law is Ogletree Deakins’s New Jersey eAuthority. The June 2012 issue highlights several pieces of legislation now pending in NJ of which employers should take note. I’ve summarized four of them after the jump…
You can access the state-by-state charge data here. And view it all in a single downloadable spreadsheet here.
In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, individuals filed 4,302 charges of discrimination in FY2011, which amounts to 4.3% of the total number of US charges filed. As with Americans across the country, retaliation was the most popular box checked (37.2% of all charges) in Pennsylvania. However, disability was number two in PA (31.1%) versus a national average of 25.8%, which pales compared to race and sex, nationally. Rounding out the top five in PA were: (3) sex (30%); (4) race (27.3%); and (5) age (27.3%).
Across the river in New Jersey, which has two-thirds the population of PA, residents filed less than half the number of charges (1,841) with the EEOC in FY2011 as were filed in PA. The reason? I suspect it is because individuals who have claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which is very similar to the federal discrimination laws, do not need to file a claim with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, the state’s administrative agency, before going to court. The top five boxes checked on NJ EEOC charges were: (1) retaliation (35.1%), (2) race (33.9%); (3) disability (25.8%); (4) sex (24.8%); and (5) age (23.3%).
Well, that didn’t take long.
Late last month, I reported on a bill that had been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, known as the Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOPA), that would prohibit employers, schools, and universities from requiring someone to provide a username, password or other access to online content.
Now, it’s the U.S. Senate’s turn to get in on the act with its own password bill. Plus, after the jump, I’ll have an update on similar legislation winding its way to Governor Christie in New Jersey…
The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly forbids discrimination against those who are actually disabled or “regarded as” disabled. As a NJ court once recognized, “Distinguishing between actual handicaps and perceived handicaps makes no sense.” Indeed, “prejudice in the sense of a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known is the fountainhead of discrimination engulfing medical disabilities which prove on examination to be . . . non-existent.”
Does the same maxim apply to workplace discrimination — a barrage of anti-semitic comments — directed at employee whom the harassers believe is Jewish, but really isn’t?
Is that unlawful?
The answer from a NJ court after the jump…
Unfair treatment because of one’s language may be related to race or national origin discrimination. Indeed, language may be used as a covert basis for discrimination.
But that’s not always so. A recent case and some helpful nuggets on English-only rules after the jump…
It was just last month that I blogged about arbitration agreement tips for PA employers from the 3rd Circuit. I hate to leave NJ employers out of the loop, so today’s post is for you.
Last week, the NJ Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Cole v. Jersey City Medical Center denied a company’s attempt to enforce an arbitration provision in its employee contract because it waited too long to do so after being sued:
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” d/b/a (just for today) “Eric’s 36th-Birthday Post”.
*** Sigh ***
Ahh…let’s get to today’s question:
The Employer Handbook Blog