Hi there, Pennsylvania employers. Do you have employees that remind you of the sleeping gentleman in the picture to the right? After the jump, read about a local employee who was fired after getting caught sleeping on the job four times, and still successfully obtained unemployment compensation benefits!
Do I have your attention now?
Early next year, the Construction Workplace Misclassification Act goes into effect. Signed in October, 2010, this legislation provides criteria for classifying a person as an independent contractor (versus an employee) in the construction industry. If you operate a business in the construction industry, you need to get prepared. Otherwise, you may be looking at fines and jail time.
Learn more after the jump.
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment, took effect on November 21, 2009. Nearly a year later, the EEOC published the final GINA regulations.
How does this law affect employers? I’ll break it down for you after the jump.
Religious discrimination claims are skyrocketing. A supervisor at a local shoe store didn’t get the memo. Guess how that turned for him…
Continue reading
To answer your question, it depends. And in Pennsylvania, there are a lot of factors that a court will consider, based on a recent case decided by the Pennsylvania Superior Court. But, unlike many prior Pennsylvania decisions that deal with the enforceability of a non-competition agreement after an employee is fired, this recent decision focuses on a non-solicitation agreement.
Read on to find out whether the non-solicitation agreement that an employees signs with your company is still enforceable if you decide to end the employment relationship.
Continue reading
Our old friend Robert Rank-And-File is at it again. He has sued his employer, Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., in federal court. Robert claims that Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it failed to promote him because of his gender, national origin and race. Before he initiated his lawsuit, Robert filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But Robert has a problem. He filed his charge two years after he claims that Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. failed to promote him. Under Title VII, his claim is now time-barred. But can he use the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to salvage his claim?
Find out after the jump…
Recently, I read an article by Bob Egelko in
the San Francisco Chronicle about a speech from U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in which he told law
students from U.C. Hastings that the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S.
citizens, do not preclude discrimination based on sex. Justice Scalia
believes that the drafters of the Constitution did not have sex
discrimination on the brain when they passed the 14th Amendment.
Over at Texas Lawyer, Mike Maslanka has a short, but very important post about a recent case out of the
I remember about a month ago reading a post on Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog about a shooting involving a Connecticut employer. Actually, at the time, I only skimmed the article. Nine dead. Tragic event. But it happened several hundred miles away.
On September 9, in Northeast Philly, my backyard, an employee who claimed she was fed up with years of constant harassment from neighbors and co-workers, returned to work after her shift had ended clutching a .357 magnum. According to a news report from Philly.com, she pointed the gun at two unarmed security guards — the employer had already taken some precautions against a potential episode of workplace violence — and ordered them to the gate. After the guards allowed the armed employee to enter, she went to a break room where she found four employees. After ordering one to leave, the disgruntled employee opened fire on the other three. Two died at the scene. One is in critical condition
I offer five preventative solutions after the jump…
Your employee wears a head-covering. The employee’s head-covering is part of her religious practice.
You’re not one to interfere with an employee’s religious expressions, but you’re concerned that this head-covering creates a safety risk for both the employee and others. And maybe you run a prison and the head-covering could be used to smuggle in contraband.
After jump, I have some practice tips for you.
Continue reading
The Employer Handbook Blog