Any employer who has faced potential class-action wage-and-hour lawsuits knows what a headache they can be. Due to a recent court ruling, employers have a lot more to worry about. That case, Pippins v. KPMG, has caused tremendous turmoil and confusion among those who follow employment litigation and electronic discovery.
In prosecution of wage and hour violations, the stakes are getting personal. In several recent cases, the government has penalized company owners and officers for failing to pay overtime, imposing stiff fines and even imprisonment.
Religion in the workplace can present a difficult balancing act for employers. Failing to strike the right balance can lead to clashes with workers and unions, potential lawsuits, trouble with federal regulators, and a negative public image.
Boeing Co. is trying to expand production and add manufacturing capacity, something most other companies can only dream about doing in this economy. Unfortunately, Boeing has hit a snag. But it is not the economy that is hampering the company. It’s the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Union membership in the private sector stands today at a mere 6.9 percent, down drastically from its high of 35 percent during the mid-1950s. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made recent moves likely to pave the way for unionizing attempts in the workforce.
While the “must be employed to apply” philosophy may make sense, federal regulators are examining these types of policies, and at least one state has made it illegal.
Imagine one of your employees bashes your company or their coworkers on Facebook. You might think that you could fire that employee. But you would probably be wrong. Or consider whether you should Google job applicants. It may seem like a no-brainer, but if you don’t do it correctly, you could end up in the midst of a lawsuit.
The Social Security Administration’s re-introduction of No-Match Letters, along with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s skyrocketing issuance of Notice of Inspections of I-9s, evidences the federal government’s increasingly aggressive stance to curb the hiring of unauthorized workers and to penalize employers who do.
To bring more objective standards to the hiring and promotion process, many organizations are using or considering employment tests. However, when employment tests are not designed, administered, or used correctly, they can leave employers vulnerable to claims of discrimination and reverse discrimination.
