The Employer Handbook Blog

Tweet this! More employers now allow social networking at work

July 13, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

In a new survey conducted by Robert Half Technology, 1400 chief information officers (CIOs) from companies across the United States with 100 or more employees were asked: “Which of the following most closely describes your company’s policy on visiting social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, while at work?”

Prohibited completely

Permitted for business purposes only

Permitted for limited personal use

Permitted for any type of personal use

Don’t know/no answer

I’ll cue up the music and list the results after the jump…

* * *

Fact or Fiction: A “general release” settles all discrimination claims

July 12, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Welcome back to “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”. But before I dispense with the brevity, allow me to pat myself on the back as, yesterday, both the ABA Law Journal and the Wall Street Journal recognized one of my recent blog posts.

***A-thank you. Thank you very much. You’re all too kind.***

On the heels of this case from the Second Circuit that I read about yesterday, I figured that today we should discuss releases. Cue the music…

Five things to keep in mind when providing FMLA leave

July 11, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) affords eligible employees up to 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for, among other things, a serious health condition that renders the employee unable to work. A company that fires an employee in the middle of approved FMLA leave has engaged in what the law deems “FMLA interference.”

However, there are some ways around the FMLA-interference claim. If the employer can show that it would have fired the same employee had the employee never taken leave, then the employer has a viable defense. Similarly, if the evidence shows that the employer did not prejudice the employee when it fired him, then the employee cannot prevail on his FMLA-interference claim.

Let that sink in for a second. Employer fires employee and employee suffers no prejudice?!? I’ll explain after the jump…

* * *

Job candidate bolts from a drug test; sues for disability bias

July 8, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before:

Job candidate is told that any job offer is contingent upon passing a drug test.

On d-day, job candidate bolts from the drug-testing facility, claiming that he has trouble in confined spaces.

No drug test means that job candidate is disqualified from the position.

Job candidate sues claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate.

Folks, I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. Just another day in the life of an employment lawyer.

After you hit the jump, you’ll find out whether the job candidate prevailed…

* * *

This term’s top 5 employment-law Supreme Court rulings…in haiku

July 7, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Last month, the Supreme Court handed down – if not the most important – certainly, the highest-profile decision of this term with Wal-Mart v. Dukes. However, in addition to this headline-grabber, this term saw four other significant employment-law decisions from the High Court about which employers must take note.

After the jump, I revisit each case…in haiku.

* * *

Fact or Fiction: WARN applies to parents and affiliates

July 6, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Welcome back to “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”. Continue reading

Legal? Replacing over 100 workers without any sort of notice

July 5, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

In December 2006, 247 union workers went on strike at the Kohler manufacturing plant in Searcy, Arkansas. Three months later, Kohler hired 123 replacement workers.

Kohler and the Union settled their dispute in March 2008. As part of the settlement, Kohler agreed to reinstate the striking strikers. Kohler then fired the replacement workers and returned 103 of the original 247 striking workers to their former positions. 111 of the replacement workers then filed suit under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) alleging that they should have been given at least 60-days notice before being laid off.

Did Kohler violate WARN? Find out after the jump…

* * *

An employer blueprint for how to screw up at-will employment

July 1, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

In most states, absent a contract of employment, an employee is considered at-will (i.e., he or she can be fired for any reason or no reason at all). Many employers reinforce — in very prominent locations in employee handbooks — that their employees are at-will.

What happens, however, when an employer later promises an employee that she can take 12 months of leave and then return to her job?

Can the employer later renege and rely upon the at-will employment doctrine as a basis not to reinstate? Or is the employer SOL? Find out, after the jump…

…

Philadelphia’s Mayor vetoes a proposed mandatory-sick-pay bill

June 30, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

Yesterday afternoon, in a letter to City Council, Mayor Michael Nutter vetoed the “Promoting Healthy Families and Workplaces” bill. This bill, discussed in a previous blog post, would have required businesses to provide paid sick leave to employees who work a minimum number of hours in Philadelphia County.

On June 16, City Council passed a watered-down version of the bill by a razor-thin 9-8 vote.

Here is a copy of the amended bill.

Legislation introduced to expand FMLA coverage in PA

June 29, 2011 | by Eric B. Meyer

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal law, entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take up to twelve workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12-month period for:

the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;

the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;

to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition; and

a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job.

Last week, House Bill No. 1713, otherwise known as the Pennsylvania Family and Medical Leave Act, was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Labor and Industry.

How might this bill impact Pennsylvania’s already FMLA-qualifying employers? Find out after jump.

* * *