A worker who drank himself silly at work, fell and hit his head has lost his workers’ compensation claim.
Some employees will never be happy and seem to do everything possible to interfere with a normal, well-functioning workplace. When that’s the case, don’t hesitate to terminate the disruptive worker. Just make sure you document her shortcomings.
The California Court of Appeal has held that employees need to be compensated for “on-call” hours if the employer substantially restricts their ability to engage in nonwork activities. However, employers may exclude eight hours of sleep time from 24-hour shifts, if an agreement between the employer and employee calls for it.
Employees who lose their jobs may not understand that if filing for bankruptcy, they must list any potential litigation claim as an asset. Federal courts have dismissed even obviously valid employment discrimination lawsuits when employees failed to disclose such claims in their bankruptcy paperwork. That may no longer continue, if this recent case is any indication.
The DOJ is suing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) on behalf of an employee who alleges he suffered sex discrimination and harassment. The lawsuit alleges that for more than a year, a female co-worker sexually harassed the man.
Rep. George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has introduced H.R. 2721, the Pathways Back to Work Act. The bill would help low-income, unemployed workers find jobs or train for new ones.
Here’s a warning for your supervisors and managers: If an employee complains that other employees are making fun of his wardrobe choices or other manner of dressing, act fast to stop the teasing.
Track each request for ADA reasonable accommodations, along with your response. An employee’s right to sue over the denial begins as soon as it becomes obvious that her employer refused to accommodate her, and won’t be extended just because she keeps asking for an accommodation.
A California Court of Appeal has held that an employer does not have to endure two trials on whether its workers are employees or independent contractors. The decision was based on the legal principle of collateral estoppel, since the company had already litigated the issue with a state agency.
In April 2013, a California Court of Appeal decided that automobile service technicians, who were paid on a “piece-rate” basis, must also be paid at least the minimum hourly wage for the time that they are required to wait between their piece-rate-paid repair jobs. On July 19, the California Supreme Court refused to review the appeal court ruling, making it binding law.