Some supervisors may be tougher than others and some employees may not get along with a particular supervisor. It may be a matter of workplace philosophy or even personality conflict. And the employee may genuinely be so stressed and anxious that she needs medical or psychological treatment. But that does not mean that she can demand transfer to a different supervisor as a reasonable accommodation, a California court has ruled.
Some public employees in civil service positions may challenge their discharge through the civil service system. But doing so does have its dangers.
Employers that provide clear rules on what employees must do before being considered for promotions can reduce the possibility of failure-to-promote lawsuits. That’s because employees who don’t follow those clear rules can’t argue they weren’t promoted on account of their membership in a protected class. They lost out because they didn’t follow the rules.
The Court of Appeal of California has reversed a lower court order denying arbitration and ordered the case into arbitration instead.
If you take prompt, remedial action and then monitor the situation for possible continued harassment or retaliation, chances are that a one-time incident won’t mean losing a sexual harassment lawsuit. Of course, you still have to investigate every allegation, even if your first impression is that there wasn’t behavior serious enough to constitute sexual harassment.
Yes, employers are supposed to engage in an interactive process to arrive at reasonable ADA accommodations. But that doesn’t mean everything the employee wants, the employee gets. It’s up to the employer to determine which accommodation is both reasonable and best suited to its business needs.
Summer is here and many teenagers have hit the workforce to earn a few extra dollars. Companies that hire teenagers should be aware that state and federal laws restrict their hours and duties.
When you settle an employment discrimination complaint or lawsuit, you likely include a “no-rehire” provision. Essentially, you trade some settlement dollars for the former employee’s promise not to apply for work at your company in the future. It’s a way to prevent future failure-to-hire lawsuits. Until now, everyone thought such common settlement provisions were legally valid and enforceable. But now a recent case has cast doubt on that premise by looking at California’s broad prohibitions on restrictive covenants in the Business and Professions Code Section 16600.
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Center, which partially invalidated an Industrial Welfare Commission wage order provision allowing health care industry employees to waive one of two required meal periods on shifts longer than eight hours.
A California Court of Appeal has upheld an arbitration agreement written in English and signed by employees with limited language ability.