Iowa Law Blog : Iowa Lawyer & Attorney : Sullivan & Ward Law Firm : Iowa Law Blog

Iowa adheres to the “at-will” employment doctrine, which simply states that an employee can be discharged for any lawful reason or no reason at all. A termination is wrongful when it violates public policy. In Berry v. Liberty Holdings, the Iowa Court of Appeals determined that Chapter 668 of the Iowa Code, which allows injured persons to bring a claim against the negligent individual, serves as the basis for a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

Berry was an employee for Liberty Holdings. The owner of Liberty Holdings also had an ownership interest in Premier Concrete Pumping. On his way home from work one day Berry was hit by a Premier Concrete Pumping truck and injured. Berry brought a personal injury suit against Premier to recover for his damages, which was settled. A few months later, Berry was terminated.

 

In the decision, the Court stated that “nothing could be more fundamental than the right of reasonable access to courts to protect those inalienable rights possessed by all persons and recognized by both the United States and Iowa Constitutions.” While the overall purpose of Chapter 668 is to establish a system for apportioning fault in negligence actions it also includes the state’s expressed policy that its citizens may seek legal redress for an injury caused by another’s negligence. If the Court chose not to expand the public policy exception to include Berry’s claim, it felt that employees may be forced into giving up certain well-recognized rights.

 

This is not the end of this case, however. Judge Vaitheswaran dissented stating that Chapter 668 does not define a right; therefore, cannot be the basis for the proposed public policy exception. Liberty Holdings may appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa. The Supreme Court of Iowa may agree with Judge Vaitheswaran.  

 

Further, while Berry has won this battle, he still must prove that he was terminated because he filed a claim against Premier before he can recover. This opinion contained no facts that would suggest one way or another whether Berry’s claim will be successful.  It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Did you know that a new law passed in Iowa requires employers to give veterans Veterans' Day off in certain circumstances?

New Iowa Code section 91A.5A mandates that all employees who are veterans are entitled to a holiday on Veterans' Day, November 11.  The holiday may be paid or unpaid.  An employee who wishes to take this holiday must make his or her request known to the employer at least 30 days prior and provide a federal document that demonstrates his or her eligibility.  The employer is required to notify the employee at least 10 days in advance if the holiday will be paid or unpaid.

To my knowledge, this is the first holiday employers are required to give employees under Iowa law.  All other holidays given to employees are discretionary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 1, 2010 Iowa's version of the federal WARN act went into effect.  The Iowa Workforce Development has a quick facts chart comparing the Iowa and federal law.   Additionally, the Iowa House Democrats posted a summary guide of the bill explaining the benefits and need for the law as well as a brief summary.  Now employers with at least 25 employees must give 30 days' notice to employees or their representatives and IWD of layoffs or closings resulting in the termination of 25 employees or more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It looks like employers may be saved from the nightmare the legalization of marijuana could have on employer policies. A few weeks ago I discussed the possible effects the legalization of medical marijuana could have on employers. It seemed that the Iowa Legislature may have been headed that direction, but a Des Moines Register article published earlier this week indicates that the legalization of medical marijuana has stalled again.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law which protects disabled employees from discrimination. Chapter 216 of the Iowa Code provides protection for disabled workers as well.

A covered employer under the federal law means any business with at least 15 employees. The Iowa law covers all businesses with employees.

Both the federal and state laws protect qualified individuals with a disability against employment discrimination. Disability includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Much has changed with respect to who qualifies as a having a physical or mental impairment. A good rule of thumb is to start with the assumption that the person meets the definition of disabled and work from there. If you have questions contact your attorney. The other two definitions of disabled—having a record of such an impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment—generally go unnoticed, but it is important to remember that even someone without a disability can be covered under these laws. 

A qualified individual is one who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. For this reason, identifying the essential job functions with job descriptions is important.

 

If a person is disabled under the ADA or Iowa law, the employer is required to reasonably accommodate the individual unless it would impose a great hardship on the employer. It is important for employers to discuss with the employee reasonable accommodations that will assist the employee in performing his or her job duties. Refer to my previous post, if you are having trouble identifying a reasonable accommodation. Remember you do not necessarily have to accept the employee’s suggestion if a different accommodation will allow that person to perform his or her job duties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This weekend I will be heading to St. Paul, Minnesota for the 2010 Upper Midwest Employment Law Seminar. This will be my 3rd year attending. I am looking forward to hearing great speakers and receiving updates/refreshers on employment related topics. The seminar isn’t just for lawyers either.  The seminar includes practical sessions which teach HR personnel the application of the law as well.  If your business has human resources personnel you should consider sending them to the seminar.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With the myriad of federal and state employment laws it’s easy to forget the basic application principles of each one. For the next few weeks, I plan on taking the time to outline the basic application factors of certain state and federal employment laws. It may seem basic, but getting back to the basics is helpful for a beginner in the employment law field and a good reminder for the seasoned veterans. I will begin with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

• The FMLA applies to employers who have had 50 or more employees in 20 or more calendar weeks.
• Eligible employees must meet the following criteria:
  • 12 cumulative months of employment within the previous seven years unless the break in service was for National Guard or Reserve military service or per a written agreement.
  • 1,250 hours actually worked during the 12 month period
  • Works at a site with 50 employees or where the employer has 50 employees within a 75-mile radius
• The FMLA provides 12 unpaid workweeks of leave in a designated 12-month period for eligible employees and for the following reasons:
  • Birth, adoption or placement of a child for foster care
  • When the employee has a “serious health condition” that makes him/her unable to perform the functions of his/her position
  • The employee is needed to care for the employee’s parent, spouse or child with a “serious health condition” and
  • Qualifying exigency leave
• The FMLA provides 26 unpaid workweeks of eave in a single 12-month period to care for an injured service member.
• The FMLA leave may run concurrent with paid-time-off but employer’s can enforce notice policies for vacation and sick leave. For example, if an employer requires two weeks’ advance notice for vacation requests, an employee must give notice two weeks in advance to substitute vacation time for FMLA leave, even for unforeseeable FMLA leaves.
• Leave may be consecutive, intermittent or on a part-time basis.
• Employees must give 30 days’ notice if the leave is foreseeable. For unforeseeable reasons employees must give as much notice as practicable, which has recently been defined as within the deadlines and following the procedures prescribed by the employer’s usual notice requirements for missing work.
• Employers are required to provide 4 notices to employees:
  • A general notice
  • An eligibility notice
  • A rights and responsibilities notice
  • A designation notice
• Employers may request certification, recertification every 6 months for an ongoing condition, and require employees to submit a fitness for duty certification under certain circumstances
• Employer must maintain health insurance coverage on FMLA leave on the same terms as if the employee continued to work, but is not required to maintain non-health benefits during unpaid leave provided that such benefits do not accrue for employees on other types of unpaid leave.
• Generally, employees are entitled to return to a position that is the same with respect to job duties, pay, benefits and terms and conditions as before leave.

For more detailed information on the FMLA rules and regulations visit the Department of Labor's website or speak to your attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that employers are not required to accommodate the use of medical marijuana in the workplace. A great summary of the facts and reasoning behind the decision can be found here. The bottom-line is that marijuana, despite being legalized for medicinal uses in a number of states is still considered an illegal drug under federal law, and employers are not required to accommodate its use.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court went one step further by ruling that employers are not obligated to accommodate the use of medical marijuana off-site. The ruling wasn’t available on

the California Supreme Court website anymore, but you can read a summary here.

 

What does this mean for Iowa employers? For now, nothing. But the legalization of marijuana for medical use has recently been creating a stir in Iowa.  In March of this year the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended that marijuana be legalized for the purpose of medicinal uses. They plan to propose legislation to the Iowa Legislature during the 2011 session. If the legislation passes, which some predict will happen, what does this mean for employers with a zero drug tolerance policy? Will accommodations need to be made for employees who consume marijuana off-site or on-site?

 

The California and Oregon rulings are only the “law of the land” in California and Oregon.   Those rulings will not be definitive for any situations that may arise in Iowa. In fact, other states with medical marijuana statutes have implicit or explicit protections for employees written into the statute. Any decisions under those statutes will likely be different than the California and Oregon rulings. Clearly, the language of any law passed by the Iowa legislature will be important in determining an employer’s obligation with respect to employees who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. 

 

Even though no Iowa law exists currently, employers should be cognizant that any law passed legalizing medical marijuana use may have major implications on current employment policies. Employers should be ready to implement new policies and address the situation when/if the legislature passes a law legalizing marijuana for medicinal use. Such policy amendments may be required by the implicit or explicit language of the statute or be based on an employer’s individual decision relating to its employee’s medicinal use of marijuana.  Change may be coming and employers need to be prepared.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that discharging an employee for aiding injured employees in claiming worker’s compensation benefits is not unlawful. At-will employees may be terminated for any lawful reason. One unlawful reason Iowa recognizes is discharging an employee for pursuing worker’s compensation benefits. In this case, the supreme court was to determine whether that exception should be broadened.

In this situation Ballalatak was not the injured employee. Ballaltak was the supervisor of two employees who had been injured on the job. When Ballalatak inquired as to whether the employer was lawfully handling the worker’s compensation claims of two injured employees he was terminated. Ballalatak argued that the pursuit of worker’s compensation benefits exception should extend to employees who attempt to help the injured employee receive worker’s compensation benefits. He pointed to Iowa’s OSHA laws and regulations, wage payment collection actions, and discrimination laws to support his claim. The Supreme Court disagreed. In each of the noted statutes, there is clear language that prevents employers from retaliating against other employees who assist or participate in a proceeding or action brought by the injured employee. Iowa’s worker’s compensation laws and regulations have no such express policy. The public policy protection found in Iowa’s worker’s compensation statutes protects the injured employee, but does not extend to those who assist the injured employee. 

 

Although Ballalatak was doing something presumably commendable—assisting injured employees in assuring their rights were not being trampled upon—Ballalatak was not wrongfully discharged. This case is an example of the court’s unwillingness to deviate from the at-will employment structure and the difficulty in proving wrongful termination.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A change in a Denmark Brewery’s beer drinking policy at work caused its workers to strike. (They are now only allowed to drink beer in the break room during lunch).   What policy change do you think would cause you or your worker’s to strike?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A change in a Denmark Brewery’s beer drinking policy at work caused its workers to strike. (They are now only allowed to drink beer in the break room during lunch).   What policy change do you think would cause you or your worker’s to strike?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week I was talking with a friend about the recent job interviews she has had. I was shocked at the questions she was asked and comments that were made to her during her interviews with attorneys. Because apparently even attorneys need guidance on appropriate interview questions and techniques, I have a few reminders listed below:

·         Consider candidates based solely on their qualifications for the job. 

·         Do not make any statements that would cause an applicant to believe he/she is guaranteed a job or will have permanent employment.

·         When asking questions avoid the following as it may be viewed that you are making decisions based on discriminatory criteria. Do not make comments regarding the same as well.

 

-        Marital status: What is your marital status? Are you married? What does your husband/wife do?

 

-        Age: How old are you? When did you graduate from high school?

 

-        Disability: Are you disabled? Have you ever filed worker’s comp claim? Will you take a physical exam before we offer you a job? If the disability is apparent you may ask whether the applicant will need a reasonable accommodation and what accommodation is needed.

 

-        Religion: What’s your religion? What church do you attend? What religious holidays do you observe? Does your religion prohibit your working on Saturdays? Are there any holidays on which you cannot work?

 

-        Gender/Sex: Are you pregnant? What are your family plans? How many children do you have? What will you do with your kids while you’re at work?

 

-        National Original/Race: Where were you born? Are you a US Citizen? What languages do you speak (if not a job requirement)

 

-        Financial Condition: Have your wages ever been attached? Have you declared bankruptcy? Do you own or rent? These questions are not permissible unless directly relevant to the applicant’s suitability for the position.

 

-        Avoid personal questions as they may be seen as relating to sex, religion, ethnicity or other prohibited areas.

 

If in doubt, if it’s not job related, don’t ask! You are trying to find the best candidate for the job and the best candidate for the job is the one who can complete the job related functions.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

A couple weeks ago I posted about the difficulties breastfeeding mothers may face in the workplace.  An article in today's Des Moines Register highlights the same issue and discusses potential legislation in the Iowa Legislature.  Unfortunately, the article indicates that the legislature may table this topic pending the development of the new federal law signed on Monday.  (The federal law apparently only applies to employers with 50 or more employees).  For now, breastfeeding mothers in Iowa may need to rely on their persuasive skills to obtain a clean, private place to express breast milk at work. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It’s March Madness! Pick your teams, fill out your bracket and turn in your $5 to the office pool manager… or not? Are office pools legal under Iowa law? According to Iowa Code Section 99B.12 individuals may participate in social gambling if:

1.      The gambling is incidental to a social relationship between all participants

2.      The gambling is not on school property

3.      All participants are individuals

4.      The gambling is fair and honest

5.      No person receives or has the right to receive compensation except if they are the winner of the pool.

6.      The participant is not a coach, official, player or contestant in the athletic contest

7.      No participant wins or loses more than $50

8.      No participant pays an entrance fee, cover charge, or other charge for the privilege of participating in gambling or for the privilege of gaining access to the location in which gambling occurs.

9.      Everyone has the opportunity to deal, if dealing is required.

 

So before you turn in your bracket make sure your office is following all the rules. Go Panthers!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The University of Iowa fired men’s basketball coach Todd Lickliter yesterday. Lickliter was terminated after leading the Hawkeyes through three disappointing, losing seasons. What is shocking to most people is not that he was terminated, but that the University is paying him $2.4 million to leave. Many see it as a reward for doing a terrible job. Lickliter, however, is one of very few employees that was employed pursuant to a contract. The University cannot just terminate him like an at-will employee (see my previous post about at-will employment). When the University hired Lickliter they promised to employ him for 7 years at $1.2 million per year. The University decided yesterday that 7 years was too long and terminated him after only 3. Thankfully, the University had a termination clause in the contract that allowed them to terminate him at a buyout of only half of his contract rate ($600,000 per year). Otherwise Hawk fans may have been looking at $4.8 million to get rid of Lickliter and bring in a winning coach hopefully… Keno Davis anyone?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Do breastfeeding employees have any protection under the laws? That was the question I wanted an answer to after learning from other women that some employers were not supportive of their decision to continue breastfeeding upon return to work. The employers of the women I talked to did not refuse to allow the women to pump at work, but did not make it easy for them either. Many of the women did not have regular breaks or a private and convenient place to express their breast milk. 

Unfortunately, as of 2009 approximately 15 states have enacted laws that protect a lactating employee. Iowa is not one of those states. Of the states with laws, none provide a lactating employee any time, other than their normal breaks, in which to pump and only a few require the employer to provide a lactation area. I would argue that such laws do not effectively provide any protection to a lactating employee. Without adequate time and a private area, many women would abandon the idea of continuing to breastfeed their children.      

 

With all the benefits that breastfeeding provides for both mother and child, it would be beneficial for employers to support mothers who wish to continue breastfeeding upon their return to work. I am lucky to work for an employer that has supported my decision to continue breastfeeding upon my return to work. For those of you with employers that may not prohibit you from pumping at work, but do not necessarily encourage you, talk to your employer before the issue arises. Perhaps your employer has never been faced with the issue or the issue has never been discussed. Employers, think about this issue prior to a request from an employer. Think about whether you can create a private place for a lactating worker or provide such employer with additional time in which to pump. Thinking about it now may reduce future problems. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employers need to be aware of the effect the H1N1 flu virus may have on its workforce this winter and be prepared to deal with issues that arise. According to the CDC the H1N1 flu virus attacks young children and young adults. This means many employees will either contract the H1N1 virus themselves or have a child that contracts the virus. The CDC is recommending that those that contract the virus stay home and away from the public for at least 24 hours after their fever is gone.

For employees with sick leave or paid-time-off (PTO), staying home to take care of a sick child or themselves does not present a problem. But there are employees who either have no available time off or have exhausted all their available time off. What can or should an employer do in that case? 

Employers are under no obligation to provide those infected with the H1N1 virus any additional time off. Providing sick leave or PTO is not required, at this time, under any Iowa or federal law. There have been no requirements from Iowa or the federal government mandating that employers allow persons infected with the H1N1 virus time off from work (either paid or unpaid). However, persons infected with the virus may potentially spread it to others, thus resulting in a “pandemic” in your workplace. It may be possible for you to adopt policies which allow sick workers to stay at home. Examples of such policies include granting more PTO; allowing sick workers to “borrow” time from a future allotment; allow employees to work from home.

 

Even if none of the above options are appropriate for your work site, it is still important to stress preventative health options to your workers—washing hands, using antibacterial hand gels etc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Des Moines Register is reporting that local class action lawsuit against Casey's General Stores goes to a federal judge for approval of a settlement entered into with the parties.  Casey's would agree to pay $12.1 million for employees who were required to work off-the-clock, including cooks and assistant managers.

This case continues to remind employers that requiring non-exempt employees to work overtime needs to be properly compensated.  In fact, the argument has been successfully made in situations where the employer did not even authorize the overtime, yet still was required to pay overtime.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today President Obama announced a plan that will encourage unemployed workers to enroll in educational and retraining programs.  The President's plan encourages states to update their unemployment compensation rules so that unemployed workers taking advantage of the program do not lose their unemployment compensation benefits.  Iowa's current unemployment compensation scheme has such a speed-bump.

Under Iowa Code § 96.4 an unemployed individual is eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if the individual is "able to work, is available for work, and is earnestly and actively seeking work."  The Iowa Administrative Code state that full-time students "devoting the major portion of their time and effort to their studies are not "available" for work as required by the Iowa Code unless they are "available to the same degree and to the same extent as they accrued wage credits."  Thus, they are ineligible to receive unemployment benefits.  Exceptions include an indivdual in training with the approval of the director and training approved under 19 U.S.C. § 2296(a), the Trade Act of 1974, Relief from Injury Caused by Import Competition.

President Obama's plan only "strongly encourages" states to alter ther current rules.  With Iowa's unemployment rate still approximately 3.3% below the national rate, (according to March 2009 rates) I don't anticipate many changes in Iowa's rules in the near future.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus package, will be signed today by President Barack Obama.  The stimulus package creates many changes that employers should become aware of.  One significant change, however, is COBRA coverage and notices.  The Ohio Employer’s Law Blog sets forth the changes made by the stimulus package to COBRA.  The changes will require employers to amend their current COBRA notices and to re-notify employees terminated between September 1, 2008 and February 17, 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the wake of tough economic times, many companies are exploring alternative cost cutting methods.  One method is requiring employee furloughs.  Employers are using required furloughs rather than terminations as a cost-cutting measure.  If you are thinking about using a furlough at your company remember the following rules regarding non-exempt and exempt employees:

 

·         Non-exempt employees must be paid only for actual hours worked.  An employer may send non-exempt employees home as a cost-cutting measure without worrying much about the legal problems.  You will need to review any contracts, including collective bargaining agreements, your company may have with non-exempt employees before implementing a furlough to ensure that you are not violating any of the provisions contained within the agreement.

 

·         Exempt employees must receive full salary for any week in which work is performed, without regard to the number of days or hours worked.  If any exempt employee does not receive full salary for every workweek in which the employee performs any work, exempt status is lost and the employee is entitled to overtime pay.  In general, furloughs for exempt employees should be scheduled in full workweek increments to protect an employee’s exempt status.

 

These should be considered general rules.  If you have specific questions about implementing a furlough plan please contact your attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except in certain circumstances, is rarely implicated in the modern employment law world.  So I was very interested when I read about Vinluan v. Doyle, --- N.Y.S.2d ---, 2009 WL 93065 (Jan. 13, 2009), a case out of New York, was decided under the Thirteenth Amendment. 

Ten nurses from the Philippines were hired to work in nursing homes caring for chronically ill children dependent on ventilators.  They each signed employment contracts which promised free travel to the U.S., two months of free housing and medical coverage, training and assistance in obtaining legal residency and nursing licenses.  In exchange, the nurses made a three-year commitment to the nursing home.  Soon after their arrival the nurses began complaining that the terms of the contact had been breached.  Nursing licenses had not been obtained.  The housing provided was inadequate—one bathroom, inadequate heat, no telephone service.  Nurses had not been fully compensated for all hours worked.  The nurses found attorney Felix Vinluan and met with him to discuss their options.  He advised them that under the New York Education Law they could not leave their positions during a shift when they were on duty, but had a right to resign after their shifts had ended.  The nurses resigned the following day either at the end of their shift or in advance of their shift.  They all used an identical form letter they agreed upon together.  No patient was deprived of nursing care services.

 

In response to the mass resignation, the employer sued the nurses and attorney Vinluan and filed a complaint with the New York State Education Department.  The nurses and Vinluan were also criminally charged with conspiracy to commit endangerment of a child and a physically disabled person.  It was the criminal charges against the nurses and Vinluan that implicated the Thirteenth Amendment.  The nurses contended that subjecting them to criminal sanctions for their act of resigning effectively compels them to remain at their jobs in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.  The nursing home contended that the resignations created an imminent threat to the well-being of the children and fell within the “exceptional circumstances” exception to the Thirteenth Amendment.  The court disagreed with the nursing home and prohibited the prosecutor from pursing the criminal charges.  The nurses were engaged in private employment, not public service; they did not have unique or specialized skills; and there was no threat to the health of the children.  The attorney was also cleared of any wrong doing under the First Amendment.

 

Photo on Flickr by eo was taken

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed by President Obama today.  The full text of the bill can be found here.  The Human Resources News blog summarizes the Act as follows:

Specifically, the Fair Pay Act amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs not only upon adoption of a discriminatory compensation decision or practice but also when the employee becomes subject to the decision or practice as well as each additional application of the decision or practice. In other words, the 180-day statute of limitations will now be extended on every occurrence of an unlawful employment practice, including issuance of paychecks.

The Act was passed in response to the Supreme Court decision which dismissed Lilly Ledbetter's case against her employer.  The bill is retroactive to May 27, 2007 (the date of the decision) but does not revive claims that have already been dismissed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

With massive layoffs happening daily, even in Iowa (e.g. Microsoft, Electrolux, Meredith) it’s important to know your rights during a mass layoff or closing under Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).

What is WARN? WARN is a federal law which offers protection to employees by requiring employers to provide written notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs.

 

Is my employer covered by WARN?  Businesses with at least 100 full-time employees or a combination of at least 100 part-time and full-time employees who work a total of 4000 hours per week are covered by WARN.

 

What is a “mass layoff” or “plant closing”?  A mass layoff or plant closing occurs when:

 

·         at least 50 employees are laid off during a 30-day period, if the laid-off employees made up at least one-third of the workforce

·         500 employees are laid off during a 30-day period, no matter how large the workforce; or

·         an entire work site is closed down and at least 50 employees are laid off during a 30-day period.

 

What happens if WARN is violated?  If a business violates the WARN Act  the business is liable to each aggrieved employee for an amount including back pay and benefits for the period of violation, up to 60 days.

 

It is important to contact your attorney to discuss your specific situation if you feel your employer has violated the WARN act.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

 The ADA requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for qualified individuals with a disability.  (“Disability” is a broadly defined term which can encompass a number of impairments.  Determining whether some is disabled for the purposes of the ADA can be difficult. If you have questions whether an employee may be covered by the ADA you should contact your attorney). A reasonable accommodation can include the following:

·         Making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities;

·         Job restructuring, modifying work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position;

·         Acquiring or modifying equipment or devices, adjusting or modifying examinations, training materials, or policies, and providing qualified readers or interpreters.

 

But what else can you do? How do you know what equipment or devices exists? Where do you find the materials you need? The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) was created to help assist employers, employees and other interested people in answering these questions. The JAN staff can help businesses by suggesting reasonable accommodations and assisting with the implementation of reasonable accommodations.  Private businesses may access JAN services by telephone, email and on-line tools. It provides helpful and practical information and guidance for employing and retaining individuals with disabilities.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Iowa Legislature has a number of bills it will be considering this session. Although some bills may die in committee it’s interesting to see what is being considered. Below are the bills and study bills that are currently in the House Labor Committee and Senate Labor & Business Relations Committee. You can see the full text of the bills on the committee websites. 

Senate Labor & Business Relations Committee:

SF 7	A bill for an act relating to notice of public disclosure of certain workers' compensation information.
SF 24	A bill for an act providing for the licensure of elevator contractors and elevator mechanics and providing penalties.
SSB 1051	A study bill for an act pertaining to the duties and regulations under the purview of the labor commissioner.
SSB 1052	A study bill for an act relating to unemployment insurance benefits and compliance with federal law regarding and in order to qualify for funding, and including effective and applicability dates.
SSB 1053	A study bill for an act relating to an increase in the balance of the unemployment compensation reserve fund and the purposes for which the fund's interest may be used.
SSB 1054	A study bill for an act providing training program extension benefits to unemployment insurance benefits, and including an applicability date.
SSB 1055	A study bill for an act requiring employers to provide notice of plant closings and mass layoffs and providing penalties.
SSB 1071	A study bill for an act relating to the duties of the labor commissioner pursuant to wage payment collection and child labor law enforcement, making an appropriation, and providing penalties.

House Labor Committee:

HF 10	A bill for an act relating to employees who are breast-feeding.
HF 11	A bill for an act to increase the state minimum hourly wage by the same percentage as the increase in federal social security benefits.
HF 24	A bill for an act requiring employers to provide employees with meal periods and rest periods and providing penalties.
HSB 61	A study bill pertaining to the duties and regulations under the purview of the labor commissioner.
HSB 62	A study bill for requiring employers to provide notice of plant closings and mass layoffs and providing penalties.
HSB 63	A study bill relating to the duties of the labor commissioner pursuant to wage payment collection and child labor law enforcement, making an appropriation, and providing penalties.

I will be tracking these bills throughout the legislative session and provide updates periodically.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Sims v. NCI Holding Corp., is a great example of the importance of complying with employee related statutes. Sims sued his employer for violating Iowa Code § 730.5 (drug-testing) after being terminated for testing positive for an illegal drug.  Apparently, prior to the filing of the lawsuit NCI gave oral notice of Sims' right to a second test rather than written notice as required by the statute.  It was ultimately determined that the employer did not wrongfully discharge Sims and was not required to pay Sims back pay or punitive damages or reinstate him. Because the employer failed to follow the requirements of the statute, however, it was ordered to pay Sims’ attorney fees and costs. The employer’s failure to follow a clear directive from the Iowa legislature likely cost it tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. It may have only cost the employer a few hundred dollars to contact its attorney and ensure that it was complying with the statute.

Photo on Flickr by singsing_sky

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 If you're an Iowa business that hires independent contractors - or at least calls those individuals independent contractors - beware.  A recent article in the Des Moines Register highlighted a recent report from the state indicated that companies are abusing the classification of independent contractor, as opposed to treating them as an employee, in order to save costs and taxes.  The state report recommended enhanced enforcement, including aggressive investigations and cooperation with the IRS.  For questions on whether your company should be treating your workers as employees or independent contractors, read our prior post on this very topic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When does bullying behavior in the workplace rise to an actionable level? This question was considered by the Iowa Court of Appeals in Wilson v. Cintas Corp No. 2 released Wednesday, December 17, 2008.

The facts indicate that Wilson was daily subjected to a “constant barrage of personal attacks, insults, and vile profanity” by his co-worker Mills. (The conduct occurred for approximately 5-10 minutes each day). The specific insults are too vulgar to repeat, but can be found in the opinion. It was also brought out that both employees were involved in the insults and profanity. Wilson did report the conduct to his supervisors. Apparently the employer took some action because Mills was terminated in December because he had four occurrences of shouting inappropriate language and not maintaining a level of professionalism. Later Wilson terminated his employment for reasons unrelated to Mills’ conduct.

 

The opinion tells us that “outrageous conduct” is the standard for maintaining an action against a co-worker for this type of conduct. Outrageous conduct “is so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”  It should extract an exclamation of outrage from and instill resentment in the average member of the community. Mills’ behavior was considered “inconsiderate, unkind, and offensive” but was not outrageous conduct according to the court.

 

The court contrasted Mills’ behavior with the behavior of a supervisor in Blong v. Snyder, 361 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984). In that case a discharged employee who was reinstated after filing a grievance was falsely “accused of stealing, wasting time, intentionally breaking his machine, intentionally producing inferior parts, violating fifteen company rules, playing with himself in the restroom, given extra work without receiving the proper tools to do the job and was then berated, threatened, and disciplined for his inability to properly complete the task.”

It’s apparent from the comparison between these two cases that the court will not get involved in personality conflicts but will step in when offensive conduct rises to a level that is unconscionable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

New FMLA Regulations have been published and will become effective January 16, 2009.  Daniel Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog identifies things employers need to be aware of.  I encourage you to read his article which is the first of a series outlining what changes employers need to make or be aware of by January 16 2009.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

 

The Iowa Wage Payment Collection Act protects employees from employers who fail to pay wages owed to an employee. Wages, as defined in the act, can encompass more than just compensation owed for labor or services. It can also include vacation, holiday, sick leave, and severance payments which are due an employee under an agreement or policy of the employer, benefit payments under an agreement or policy of the employer, and expenses incurred and recoverable under a health benefit plan. The key is whether an agreement or policy providing for payment of these items exists. In most instances the agreement or policy will be contained in an employee handbook. It can, however, take the form of an unwritten policy.

 

An employer is required to pay all wages earned no later than the next payday for the pay period in which the wages were earned. Employees paid on a commission basis, however, may have to wait up to thirty days from the date of termination to get their final paycheck.

 

An employee who has a claim against an employer for wages may bring an action in an Iowa district court or, if the claim is less than $5,000.00, through the Iowa Department of Labor. A claim form for the Iowa Department of Labor can be found here and the steps the Department follows can be found here.  Claims for wages must be brought within two years after the wages were earned.

 

Photo on flickr by jenn_jenn.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article in the Des Moines Register today reported that the percentage of unemployed Iowans fell to 4.2% in September. This is down 0.3% from August and up 0.4% from a year ago. The national unemployment rate is 6.1%. While Iowans seem to be better off than the rest of the country, Iowans in the 4.2% may be asking themselves “now what?”

 

If you are in the 4.2% of the population file an unemployment claim with Iowa Workforce Development. You may file a claim online or in person at your local IWD Center. The IWD has an informative guide which explains general questions about unemployment benefits. Benefit amounts depend on the amount of gross wages and the number of dependents you have. The maximum weekly benefit one can receive ranges from $361.00-$443.00.

 

To be eligible for benefits you must have lost your job through no fault of your own. In general, this means you must not have been discharged for misconduct. Misconduct is a defined term under the Iowa Administrative Code and is a source of a volume of case law.

During your benefits period you need to continually seek new employment. IWD will require you to submit a certain number of applications per week to employers. There are some exceptions, however, in most cases you will need to be actively seeking a new position. If you fail to seek new employment your benefits may cease. Your benefits may also cease if you fail to accept an offer of employment for a suitable position.

 

Unemployment benefits may not put you in a new position, but do provide some relief while finding a new position.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Labor Day, summer's last hurrah, is just around the corner (It's Monday, for those of you who don't highlight every holiday on your calendar). The original purpose of Labor Day was to celebrate the working (wo)man (154.5 million people now) and also to discuss working conditions and improvements that could be made. Most celebrations included rallies, demonstrations, and speeches from labor representatives. Today, Labor Day has become more of a family celebration with little thought about our working conditions. Is it because we have it so good? You decide--below are some facts and statistics about current working conditions taken from the U.S. Census Bureau regarding labor:

·         82% of full-time workers are covered by health insurance

·         77% of workers receive paid holidays

·         15% of workers have access to employer assistance for child care

·         12% of workers have access to long-term care insurance

·         46% of workers have access to dental care

·         29% of workers have access to vision care

·         64% of workers have access to outpatient prescription drug care

·         The median earnings of male full-time, year-round workers is $42,261.00

·         The median earnings of female full-time, year-round workers is $32,515.00

·         28% of workers work more than 40 hours per week

·         8% of workers work more than 60 hours per week

This year, enjoy your Labor Day celebration, but take some time to think about your working conditions and to pat yourself on the back for another good year.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Beside the fact that discriminating against prospective employees could land your company in litigation hot water, it may come back to bite you later on. Most people have heard of Roe v. Wade but haven't heard of Sarah Weddington, the attorney representing the woman seeking an abortion in Roe v. Wade. According to an ABA article, Weddington may not have had that opportunity had she been given a fair chance at a Dallas law firm. During the interview process, the law firm questioned her ability to work the long hours and still make it home to cook dinner. They were also concerned that they couldn't cuss her out as much as male associates. She didn't get the position, but she didn't file a lawsuit. Years later, when she was advising President Jimmy Carter on women's issues and judicial appointments, a senior partner in that same Dallas law firm wanted to be a federal judge. He didn't get the position.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

You've been working at ABC Co. for some time now. You have gained experience and knowledge during your employment, but you've caught the entrepreneurial bug. You want to start your own business. During your employment you have developed solid relationships with ABC Co. clients. You're positive these clients would follow you if you left ABC Co.  Before you do anything ask yourself the following questions:

1.      Did you sign a non-compete with ABC Co.? Reasonable non-compete agreements are enforceable in Iowa. If you signed a non-compete agreement before or during your employment with ABC Co., it may be enforceable and you will want to abide by the terms of the agreement. If you have questions about the agreement, contact your attorney.

2.      Do you still work for ABC Co.? If you are currently employed with ABC Co. fight the urge to solicit ABC Co. clients and/or employees. According to Iowa law employees have a duty of loyalty to their employers. Soliciting clients and/or other employees while employed violates that duty. Even an innocent conversation with a client: "Hey, I'm thinking about starting my own business, what do you think?" may be considered solicitation. It may be difficult to not ask because clients are important to the success of your new venture. But don't do it.

3.      Are you cleaning out your old office/workspace? If you have terminated  your employment (or are just about to) and are in the process of cleaning out your workspace, including your computer refrain from taking with you ABC Co. information or materials that may be unique to ABC Co.. This information or material might be considered confidential or a trade secret. Leave it there.

4.      Have you terminated your employment with ABC Co.? Once your employment relationship with ABC Co. has been terminated you are free to compete  with ABC Co.(as long as there is no agreement otherwise). You are entitled to use general information concerning the business, including the names of clients retained in your memory. Good luck.

photo on flickr by bludgeone86

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It's been said before: Wage and hour claims are the newest trend in the employment law area. Recently Wal-Mart got hit with a $6.5 million judgment for violating Minnesota wage and hour laws. The judgment could increase to $2 billion depending on the penalties imposed. Apparently Wal-Mart required employees to work off the clock and denied rest and meal breaks to employees. The 151 page opinion can be found here.

What can you do to prevent a wage and hour claim? Start by classifying your employees correctly. Employees are either exempt or non-exempt. The most common types of exempt employees are executive, administrative and professional. Non-exempt employees must be paid overtime.

Keep accurate records of the hours worked by non-exempt employees. Using punch-in and punch-out clocks may be the most accurate, but at the very least have employees write their hours on a time sheet for each pay period. Iowa law requires employers to keep these records for three years.

Make policies clear to employees and managers. If breaks are given to employees, make it clear to employees that they should or must take the breaks. Make sure managers understand this as well. It seems Wal-Mart's policy was to give workers meal and rest breaks, however, managers either directly or indirectly required employees to work during meal and rest breaks with no pay.

For more information on the wage and hour law check out the DOL website

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It should be obvious to all employers that sexual harassment in the workplace is prohibited. Most employers also understand their obligation to discipline employees who engage in harassing behavior in the workplace. But what about the non-employee harasser? Many companies are not self-sustaining—they rely on customers, vendors, outside sales persons and other non-employees to drive their business. You, as the employer, cannot control their actions. Even so, do you have the responsibility to protect your employees? 

Possibly. The federal regulations suggest that in some limited circumstances employers may be liable for sexual harassment by a customer. If the employer knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action an employer may be liable for the non-employee’s actions. Once an employer knows or should have known of the harassment, it has an obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect its employee.

As always, have a policy in place which prohibits discrimination by non-employees. Make supervisors aware that the company has a responsibility to protect its employees from harassment by non-employees. Take prompt action to investigate an employee’s complaints. Discuss with the employee the findings of the investigation and steps to prevent the harassment from continuing.

 

Photo on flickr by DOS82

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Starting July 1, 2008 a person who wants to file a civil rights complaint under Iowa law will have 300 Days. The previous filing deadline was 180 days. This change conforms to the federal deferral time-line of 300 days. There is an exception for persons covered by Section 614.8 of the Iowa Code, the mentally ill and minors. This change will result in a change the Iowa poster which may, but is not required to, be hung in the workplace. The revised recommended poster can be accessed on the Iowa Civil Rights Commission website.

Employers are required to hang the federal EEOC poster.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

I recently attended an employment law seminar in St. Paul, Minnesota. One key topic that kept resurfacing in the sessions I attended was RETALIATION. Title VII retaliation claims have increased 19% from 2006. 

An employer retaliates when it makes an adverse employment decision which tends to discourage an employee from engaging in protected conduct. What is an adverse employment decision? Although not clearly defined, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is not necessarily have to be a tangible employment decision, such as termination. What is protected conduct? Whistleblowing, filing a complaint, taking FMLA leave or making a worker’s compensation claim are all examples of protected conduct.

What should employers do to minimize retaliation claims?

• Have a clear policy prohibiting retaliation;
• Educate managers and supervisors about retaliation;
• Enforce policies consistently for all;
• Refrain from making hasty decisions when employees have engaged in protected activity in the recent past even if you believe the decision is warranted;
• Investigate all retaliation claims and discipline those who have engaged in retaliation. Inform the employee alleging retaliation of your findings and whether any disciplinary action will take place;

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed a controversial fire arms bill today.  On the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings and in light of increased violence in schools and the workplace, increased laws controlling guns might be expected. However, the new Florida legislation allows employees to keep legally owned guns locked in their car during work hours so long as the employee has a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The new law is getting mixed reviews.  Employers are understandably upset as they are prohibited from promulgating policies concerning guns on their property.  Proponets believe it is a constitutional right of all citizens.

Currently Iowa employers are still allowed to set forth their own policies concerning guns in the workplace and on company property.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Based on the premise of worker protection, the Iowa House and Iowa Senate worked out a compromise and have passed a smoking ban for most public locations.  The bill will be signed by Governor Culver and will go in effect July 1, 2008.  Gambling areas of casinos, outdoor areas of bars, outdoor areas of county and state fairs and a few other designated areas would still permit smoking under HF 2212

It took bipartisan support to get this bill passed, by a close margin.  The controversial exemptions created issues, as did the mere fact of the perceived intrusion into individual liberties.

I'll just enjoy going out for dinner and drinks and not smelling like an ashtray.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We all know that sometimes HOW you say something is more important that WHAT you say or WHY you say it. This is especially true when it comes to terminating employees. In “Halloween” from Season 2 of The Office, Michael Scott provides one way to go about terminating an employee. (You can purchase this episode at iTunes or Amazon). However, I would suggest reading today’s posting on the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog for excellent tips to use if you have to terminate an employee. It stresses the importance of focusing on HOW you terminate an employee rather than WHY you are terminating an employee. Focusing on the HOW may reduce the blow of WHAT you are saying.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employee retirement plans, including 401(k)s and pensions plans, are benefits offered by many businesses.  It's important if your business offers such a benefit that the plan comply with all the laws governing the plan.  However, mistakes can be made, therefore the IRS has published a 401(k) fix-it guide.  Although named a 401(k) fix-it guide, many of the corrections are applicable to other types of employee benefit plans.  The guide lists the eleven most common mistakes made by businesses and then offers tips on finding the mistake, fixing the mistake, and avoiding the mistake in the future.  Most errors can be self-corrected.  If you have questions consult with your plan administrator or attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), enacted in 1993, was amended January 28, 2008.  Prior to the amendment eligible employees were able to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid leave in four circumstances. The amendment expands the FMLA to include leave related to family members of military service people. Read President Signs FMLA Expansion for Military Families for a synopsis of the amended law. As the article points out the expansion will obviously create more questions surrounding the FMLA.  Hopefully, the amended law helps military families rather than burdens them with additional hoops to jump.  I would urge all employers and employees affected by the amendment to educate themselves about the changes. Also, as an employer, remember to notify employees about the changes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When an employee-employer relationship is terminated, either amicably or not, employers may be asked to provide a reference for the former employee.  Providing both positive and negative references for former employees may result in legal liability for employers.  Negative references may result in a slander or defamation action by the former employee.  False positive references or partial references may result in an action by the new employer against the former employer. 

The fear of litigation has resulted in many employers enacting a blanket policy prohibiting supervisors/managers from providing any references for any employees.  Those employers will only verify the person’s position, salary, and job duties but will not provide an assessment of that person.

Business owners will have to decide what works best for their business.  If you choose to provide references or answer inquiries, remember the Iowa Code has enacted parameters as well as protection from liability for employers: 

·        Before providing a reference a request must be made by the former employee or the prospective employer; 

·        If the former employee was discharged, a statement indicating the reasons for the discharge must be in writing; 

·        Information provided does not violate a former employee’s civil rights;

·        Employer provides information to a person with a legitimate request;

·        Employer provides information that is relevant to the inquiry;

·        Employer does not provide information with malice; and

·        Employer has a good faith belief that the information is true.

To ensure that your business follows the parameters enacted by the Iowa Code and is protected from liability get everything in writing (the request and your response); answer only the questions asked; and always be honest. When in doubt either don’t provide the reference or contact your attorney.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Question of the Week posted this week got me thinking about the classification of temporary employees. Temporary workers are workers that are employed by a staffing agency which supplies workers to the client company. Temporary workers report to the client, but receive pay and benefits from the staffing agency. Temporary workers, therefore, are considered to be the employee of the staffing agency rather than the client company.

The risk of having a temp become an employee of the client company arises when the client company retains a certain amount of control over the temp. If that happens, the client company may face liability for a wide variety of employment related issues including discrimination and wage and hour violations.

How can the client company reduce the risk of having a temp become classified as an employee? The suggestions listed below are taken from “Get Smart When Using Temporary Employees” and a 2004 Iowa case, Willms v. Associated Materials Inc.

• Allow the staffing agency to communicate the rate of pay and hours to the temp;
• Require the staffing agency to perform drug testing or background checks;
• Request the staffing agency perform periodic visits to the job site;
• Differentiate the temp uniforms, badges, parking spaces, break rooms, etc. from the permanent employees’;
• Allow the staffing agency to make hiring and firing decisions as well as take disciplinary action;
• Limit the time period a temp works at the site;
• Refer to the temp as a worker who is assigned rather than an employee who is hired;
• Always have your attorney review your agreement with the agency.

In short, treat temporary employees different than your permanent employees. A client company may not be able to completely eliminate the risks of having temporary workers classified as employees, but by using some of the suggestions above the risk will be reduced.

Photo on flickr by DCvision2006

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article in the Des Moines Register affirms my advice in a past blog: Have an internet, e-mail, and/or computer policy AND enforce the policy consistently. Michael Hopewell has been terminated from IPERS for circulating an indecent email. Hopewell, believing his termination was improper, has brought an action against the agency for unemployment benefits. IPERS claims the email joke violated its computer policy. I would imagine the nudity in the email did violate IPERS’ computer policy.  However, just from reading the article, I can presume Hopewell’s argument will be: Jokes and emails like this (maybe even worse) have been forwarded around this agency hundreds of times and nobody has ever been fired before. Based on the article, it seems that IPERS has, at least in some manner, enforced the policy in the past. It’s not clear what the outcome will be in this situation, but it is clear that having a computer policy and enforcing that policy consistently is a good business practice. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

“Forced to be Fit,” which some may have caught on the CBS Evening News last night, tells the story of the Benton County, Arkansas’ fight against fat. This isn’t your traditional fight against fat e.g. America’s Biggest Loser or Lighten Up Iowa. In this story the pressure to lose weight comes from the employer. Research shows that obese employees cost employers more in health insurance and worker’s compensation. Some employers are transferring this extra cost to the employee, while others are providing incentives to the employees for losing weight. Others have only gone so far as to provide fitness facilities to encourage weight loss.

It's clear that this issue will become more prevalent in the future.  Currently, obesity itself is not a protected class.  However, in certain limited circumstances, it may be considered a disability under the American with Disability Act.  Therefore, it's important to tred carefully when dealing with employees that are considered obese.

Photo on flickr by fanboy30

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Julie Elgar of That’s What She Said uses the employees of The Office to illustrate the pervasiveness of internet use in the workplace. Elgar recognizes that unmonitored internet usage can lead to a decline of productivity and even worse harassment among employees. What should employers do? As Elgar says it’s important to develop a monitoring system and inform the employees that the system is in place.   Communicating the policy to the employees reduces their exepctation of privacy in the workplace.  Inform employees of any disciplinary policy you may have regarding violations of the intenet usage policy.

 

Photo on flickr by *diggin an old dude*

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Iowa is an at-will employment state. The term at-will presumes that employment is voluntary and indefinite for both employers and employees. Either party can terminate the relationship at any time. For employers, however, there are some exceptions to the at-will doctrine.

Obviously employers cannot violate state or federal laws when firing employees. Employers may also not terminate employees if a contract exists between the parties. Employment contracts may be the result of collective bargaining agreements or individual written contracts. 

Less obvious to some, is the fact that employment contracts may arise through the policies outlined in an employee handbook provided to all employees. Handbooks may provide employees with expectations regarding disciplinary and termination procedures. Deviations from the policies outlined in the manual may provide a basis for a wrongful termination action against the employer.

In order to prevent such an action, employers that provide handbooks to employees should follow steps to ensure that the handbook reinforces the at-will doctrine. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For small businesses written job descriptions may seem more like a hassle than a necessity. However, I would urge you to not only have written job descriptions, but take time to write good job descriptions. Well written job descriptions not only help recruit better employees but can also reduce employment discrimination issues. 

A well written job description will outline the essential functions of the position. Listing the essential functions of the job creates consistency in the hiring, evaluating, and disciplining of employees. Outlining the essential functions of the job, as well as any necessary knowledge or skills needed, makes it easier to eliminate prospective employees based on permissible reasons.  Managers will know to evaluate and discipline employees according to an employee’s performance of the essential functions. Employees will recognize that all employees in the same position are being evaluated and disciplined according to the same standards. Consistency, created through the use of essential functions, increases the chance that decisions will be made for permissible reasons.

A well written job description will be free from discriminatory language. The EEOC has provided guidance on what language should be excluded from the job description. Obviously, references to race should never be used in a job description. References to other protected classes, including gender, national origin, religion, and age should be used only if related to a bona fide occupational qualification. The EEOC also advises employers to include requirements that have an indirect effect on protected characteristics only if the requirements are related to the essential functions of the position. For example, unless it is absolutely essential that a person work on Saturday, it would be best to omit that requirement since it may have an indirect impact on persons practicing certain religions from applying for the job. 

The Occupational Information Network provides a helpful starting point for creating job descriptions. Talking to employees can also help define and redefine current positions. Remember to review your job descriptions annually to ensure they are current.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)