08/27/2010
Like many municipalities, the city of Latrobe is struggling with falling revenue. City Manager Rick Stadler attempted to address the city’s shortfall by eliminating six clerical positions, while the Office of City Administration cut two staffers. Now all eight employees have requested an EEOC probe into the terminations to determine if they violated anti-discrimination laws.
|
08/25/2010
When the borough of Netcong implemented a reduction in force, 28-year employee Delores Colabella was the only employee whose position was eliminated. Colabella suspected her termination might have something to do with her age. She’s 72. Now she is suing the borough for age discrimination.
|
08/17/2010
When a 64-year-old worker sued for age bias, his employer pulled out documentation showing a big budget gap that required the elimination of several positions. The court said that when a legitimate RIF occurs, an employee has to provide “direct, circumstantial or statistical evidence” showing age bias. He couldn’t.
|
08/06/2010
In these difficult economic times, if you have to conduct a reduction in force, think carefully about how you select those who will be terminated, especially if you anticipate bringing some workers back when the financial picture improves. For example, don’t tell employees they were picked for layoffs because their work was substandard. Use a gentler approach.
|
07/20/2010
Q. Due to the economy, we are considering shutting down our business. Are we required to give advanced notice to our employees?
|
07/02/2010
Q. We are in the process of reducing our staff and will need to lay off several employees. Are we required to provide severance pay to those selected for layoff? How about pay for accrued, unused vacation time?
|
06/09/2010
The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) makes it an unfair employment practice to terminate an employee based on marital status. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota has now clarified that the law covers more than the state of being married; it also bans discrimination based on who one’s spouse is.
|
06/09/2010
Courts understand reductions in force and recognize that companies sometimes have to make tough decisions. When an employer can show it had good reasons for cutting employees through a RIF, affected employees will have to come up with solid discrimination evidence early in the litigation game.
|
05/26/2010
When it comes to hiring and retention decisions, make sure that everyone involved in the process is on the same page. Decide on the criteria and stick with them for all candidates. Otherwise, shifting explanations about who is chosen and who is rejected can look like intentional efforts to manipulate the choice and hide underlying discrimination.
|
05/24/2010
Watch out! If you’re contemplating reducing your workforce in order to survive today’s harsh economic climate, you need to prepare for potential litigation. To do that, make sure you carefully document why you are making the reductions. That’s especially critical if you have been negotiating reasonable accommodations for a disabled employee who may be on your RIF list.
|
05/11/2010
Q. We had to lay off an injured worker for economic reasons. He has not attempted to work for a year since that layoff. Will he be entitled to temporary benefits under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Act?
|
05/11/2010
A bill before the Ohio Legislature would require employers to provide more notice of mass layoffs than required by current state law or the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The new proposal, H.R. 434, would require employers laying off 25 or more employees to give 90 days’ notice.
|
04/20/2010
On April 15, President Obama signed into law amendments that extend eligibility for the 65% COBRA subsidy through May 31. The amendments buy time for Congress to consider additional legislation that could keep the subsidy alive until the end of the year.
|
04/15/2010
Workers who lose their jobs in a reduction in force may look at those who were retained and conclude there had to be a discriminatory reason for their misfortune. But before they can successfully sue, employees must show some degree of initiative before they can claim discrimination. An employee who never applies for an open position or who doesn’t actively ask about available jobs isn’t going to win a lawsuit.
|
04/07/2010
The New York Department of Labor has released new Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act regulations that are more stringent than federal WARN Act provisions. Employers with at least 50 workers (including part-timers) are covered. That means those employers must provide 90 days’ notice of a mass layoff, plant closing or relocation.
|