Don’t even think of including in your job application a shortened statute of limitations for resolving employment disputes.
Recent case: Ashley was hired as a security guard. Her boss also supervised his own wife. Soon, the supervisor was proposing that Ashley join him and his wife in sexual activities, telling her that they had an open marriage. He asked Ashley if she “wanted to be his sexual partner.” She rejected the proposition.
Later that day, the man sent a text while they were working, telling her “he wanted to kiss her and he was sorry she did not want to be lovers.”
The offensive and unwanted sexual behavior continued. He kept making suggestive sexual comments to Ashley, commented on her appearance, offered gifts, told her (and co-workers) about his and his wife’s sexual activities and persisted in repeatedly asking her to join him and his wife for sex.
Ashley sued, alleging sexual harassment. The lawsuit was filed within the relevant California statute of limitations.
The employer, however, asked the trial court to toss out the case because Ashley had signed a job application that specified all lawsuits had to be filed within six months. The trial court tossed out Ashley’s case.
However, the appeals court reversed. It said the limitation was unconscionable and unreasonable. (Ellis v. U.S. Security Associates, No. A136028, Court of Appeal of California, 2nd Appellate District, 2014)
- Enforce dress and grooming code tactfully to avoid trouble
- Nextel employees claim that sweetheart deal was a bitter pill
- Set clear, fairly enforced rules on behavior to trump 'my disability made me do it'
- Employee acting as own attorney only gets some leeway
- Scrutinizing employee's work isn't retaliation