01/25/2012
Sometimes, layoffs are inevitable … and they’re always a legal minefield. Get it wrong and your attorneys’ fees can easily exceed the labor costs you hoped to save. Decide who should go in much the same way you decide who to hire. Look at the jobs that will survive and select the employees who best fit those jobs.
|
01/06/2012
Sometimes, layoffs are inevitable, something that’s always hard—and often a legal minefield. Get it wrong and your attorneys’ fees can easily exceed the labor costs you hoped to save. Decide who should go in much the same way you decide who should fill a new position.
|
01/05/2012
Q. I will soon either sell my business or close it down. Either way, I will most likely have to lay off all eight of my employees. What are the legal requirements in Pennsylvania in connection with these layoffs?
|
12/16/2011
If you must eliminate jobs, make sure you create a clear paper trail explaining why and how you made the decision to terminate a particular individual. That’s especially important if the employee had discrimination charges pending—or a history of filing them.
|
12/01/2011
If you must cut staff, you naturally want to terminate the least productive workers and keep the most productive ones. You could make the decision on the basis of past performance evaluations. But what if there aren’t any?
|
11/28/2011
Before you toss that handwritten note into the employee’s file today, stop for a second and read it. Years from now, will you remember what that chicken-scratch meant? Many lawsuits have turned on one or two words scrawled by a manager or HR pro after employee meetings and conversations.
|
11/16/2011
Employees who take FMLA leave don’t enjoy greater protection than anyone else when it comes to reductions in force. If a position would have been eliminated regardless of whether the employee took FMLA leave, then the termination doesn’t violate the law. On the other hand, it’s dangerous to change who is scheduled to be laid off after learning that an employee plans to take FMLA leave.
|
11/09/2011
Q. Due to a downturn in business, we are planning to close one of our stores. Ten employees will be affected. Do we have to give any advance notice to the employees of their layoff?
|
10/26/2011
When faced with a reduction in force, employees who are out on FMLA leave don’t enjoy greater protection than other employees. For example, being on maternity leave does not exclude an employee from being considered for the RIF. That would give those on FMLA leave rights above and beyond those of other employees.
|
09/28/2011
Here’s a tip to keep in mind the next time you must terminate an employee: Even if you don’t intend to tell the worker why he is being fired, be sure to carefully document the reasons. That way, if you are challenged later in court, you can point to the contemporaneously produced record as evidence you had a legitimate, business-related reason for your decision.
|
09/16/2011
Before you implement an involuntary reduction in force, make sure you determine whether you’re vulnerable to an age discrimination lawsuit. You can do this by seeing what percentage of the workforce was over age 40 before the planned layoff ...
|
09/16/2011
Minnesota-based 3M has agreed to pay $3 million to 290 former employees to settle an EEOC lawsuit that claimed layoffs in 2003 and 2006 disproportionately targeted workers age 45 and older.
|
09/02/2011
Some employees assume that they will always get their jobs back after taking FMLA leave. Usually that’s true, but not always. Take, for example, a case in which an employer needs to lay off workers. An employee’s FMLA status doesn’t necessarily protect her job in such a situation.
|
09/01/2011
When an employee senses that she may be in trouble and about to lose her job, she may begin to review the last year or so with an eye toward filing a pre-emptory lawsuit. If she suddenly remembers alleged acts of discrimination, she’s sure to complain. But she won’t win in the end if her employer can show it made the decision to fire her before she ever complained.
|
08/18/2011
It’s a blow to companies intent on acquiring another business and replacing current employees with new workers: The California Supreme Court has ruled that local governments can pass “retention ordinances” that require new owners to keep existing employees, at least temporarily.
|