Pennsylvania

Salty about Sandy: 20 Hurricane tweets from your employees

October 30, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Hurricane Sandy: Day 2

To my east-coasters, I hope this post finds you safe and dry.

Me? Hey, thanks for asking. Our Philly home kept power throughout and we otherwise made it through unscathed. Still, Philadelphia remains in a state of emergency. The City is essentially shut down. Most of the major surrounding highways have been off-limits. And, for a second day in a row, for the safety of the drivers and the riders, there is no public transportation in the City.

That means that local businesses too opted to close on Monday, and remain closed on Tuesday. Well, most of them.

To the chagrin of some employees affected by the Hurricane, they had to work. And they have vented on Twitter.

(Insert obligatory Hurricane #Sandy and/or “do I have to go to school or work today” status here).

— Chris Schurz (@ChrisSchurz) October 29, 2012

After the jump, what your employees tweeted about working (or, maybe, not so much) during Hurricane Sandy…

[Don’t shoot the messenger]

* * *

Employee’s Twitter hatin’ costs him unemployment benefits

October 22, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

An employee getting fired for caustic social-media posts is so 2011. Having an application for unemployment-compensation benefits denied because of Twitter stupidity — that’s the new black.

Details of a recent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decision — don’t tread on me, Idaho — after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: Opposing an employee’s u/c request may be Title VII retaliation

October 17, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

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.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer engages in unlawful retaliation when, in response to an employee complaint of discrimination, it acts in a way that may dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

So, let’s assume that an individual files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against her former employer. Thereafter, the employee files for unemployment compensation benefits, and the employer fights the claim for unemployment compensation, claiming that the employee was terminated for gross negligence. Could that be viewed as Title VII retaliation?

Does the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act cover lost LinkedIn business opportunities?

October 10, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

powered by Fotopedia

In the beginning of the year, I wrote here about a federal-court decision, which recognized that LinkedIn connections are not company trade secrets. Earlier this month, that same court, in the same case, was asked to decide whether hijacking an employee’s LinkedIn account may violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

In Eagle v. Morgan, the plaintiff, Dr. Eagle, claimed that her former employer had locked her out of her LinkedIn account for 22 weeks. Thus she was “unable to receive ‘invitations to connect, business opportunities and ongoing communications with clients, potential clients and other business and personal contacts.'”

That moment right before the pain begins: an EEOC subpoena

September 19, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Back in July, I blogged here about a federal appellate court recently emphasizing just how broad the subpoena power of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission really is. [Editor’s Note: the technical legal term is “crazazy broad”]

Last Friday, as I was ~~hosting the weekly dip-spit distance shot~~ organizing my office, I saw this opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which further underscored just how far and deep the EEOC’s outstretched hand can go into your business.

Yeah, you, dude! The one who is not accused of discriminating against anyone, but who may have information relating to a pending EEOC investigation.

What’s in store if you are on the receiving end of that subpoena? Find out after the jump…

* * *

Is an employee with managerial duties “similarly situated” to a manager?

September 13, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Maybe it’s the luck of the draw, but most of the discrimination cases I defend are hostile work environment cases, where an alleged harasser supposedly has made an employee-victim’s life miserable with certain comments, jokes, gestures, touchings, you name it.

Far less often do I encounter disparate-treatment claims. A disparate-treatment claim is one where an employee claims that another similarly-situated employee in another class was treated more favorably because of his/her protected class. For example, a female employee claims that similarly-situated male employees are paid more because they are men.

Sounds like the facts of a recent case decided right in my backyard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case provides a great opportunity to go back to school on what it means to be similarly-situated…after the jump…

* * *

Kiss the “fluctuating workweek” OT method goodbye in PA

August 30, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

mmmmmmmmmmmmwah!

What is the fluctuating workweek method of overtime compensation? Why is it no longer good in PA? And why should you care?

I answer all of these hard-hitting questions — like a BOSS — after the jump…

The 3rd Circuit’s new FLSA joint-employment test…in HAIKU

August 14, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

I just re-read yesterday’s blog drivel. What the hell was that?!? As much as I do love the two great tastes that taste great together, that was an utter FAIL and I vow never to incorporate Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups into a blog post again. Unless, of course: (a) a makeshift Peanut Butter Cup bra is prominently featured in a reported sexual harassment case; or (b) Hershey’s wants to discuss some strategic product placement on The Employer Handbook. What can I say? YOLO and even this blogger has his price.

[Editor’s note: I was determined to work YOLO into this blog post. Be nice. Although, my blogging chops are generally sharp, I’m about three months behind on the lingo.]

Focus, Eric. Short blog post. You can handle haiku.

Arrgh! I cannot believe that Haiku-themed blog post, 17 syllables, would require readers to click through past the jump. Ah, whatever. Click through and someone call my editor…

PA to require public-works contractors & subcontractors to use E-Verify

July 12, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last week, Governor Tom Corbett (R) signed the Public Works Employment Verification Act. The Act goes into effect on January 1, 2013, and will require contractors and subcontractors on PA public-works projects to confirm the employment eligibility of newly hired workers using the federal E-Verify program. E-Verify is a free Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine where employees may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization.

A first offense will result in a warning. A second offense will result in 30-day debarment from public work and a small fine. All subsequent violations will get you a public-work bar of between 180 and 365 days. Any willful violation may result in a 3-year public work ban.

Moreover, the Department of General Services of the Commonwealth will be conducting both complaint-based and random audits of covered employers to determine compliance with the Act.

Pennsylvania to relax OT requirements for hospitals

July 5, 2012 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last week, Pennsylvania’s Governor, Tom Corbett was presented with this bill that will allow hospitals and other medical care facilities in Pennsylvania to better control the scheduling of employees to control payment of overtime. Details after the jump…

* * *