HR Compliance Information Specialists - LegalWorkplace.com
Sign In | Register | View Cart
 

Brought to you by the Alexander Hamilton InstituteBrought to you by the Alexander Hamilton Institute

 
  Speak with a customer care representative
by dialing toll-free (800) 879-2441
Speak with a customer care representative by dialing toll-free (800) 879-2441
Sign Up To Receive Our Free E-Mail Newsletters
Employment Law Today
Benefits Alert
HR Soapbox Blog
Cathie's Corner Blog
E-Mail:  Go
Research Topics
Benefits
Discipline/Performance Issues
Discrimination
Hiring
Leave
Payroll Management
Privacy Policy Guidelines
Record-Keeping Documents
Safety & Health
Termination
Training
Free Reports
Free HR Forms
Free Job Descriptions & Interview Questions
State DOL & Other HR Websites
Message Board

EL Today Masthead
February 18, 2009

IN THIS ISSUE:

 

1. Feature Story: Employees Post Info Online At Their Own Risk


2. Cathie's Corner: What Does Your Disciplinary Policy Say About Performance-Enhancing Employees?


3. Don't Get Trapped By False Imprisonment Charges


4. Free Report: How To Write Job Descriptions That Are Complete, Accurate, And Legally Sound

 

5. HR Soapbox: Gaining A Competitive Edge: How Far Is Too Far?

 

AHI's We Couldn't Make This Up 

A waitress in a Hooters restaurant in Davenport, IA, was the victim of a domestic assault that left her unconscious, disfigured, and with her hair chopped off. At her employer's suggestion, she took time off to recuperate. When she attempted to return, the restaurant didn't let her. At a hearing for unemployment benefits, the restaurant claimed that she had abandoned her job and that the bruises on her face and body were incompatible with the image the restaurant promotes. The general manager went so far as to testify: "Our handbook states you have to have a glamorous appearance. It doesn't actually say, 'Bruises on your face are not allowed.' It does talk about the all-American cheerleader look." Upshot: A judge awarded the waitress unemployment benefits.

We Asked, You Answered 

In last week's issue, we asked for feedback on the new Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. All who responded feel that the law will result in an increase in lawsuits, although the majority (53.3%) think the increase will be minor, versus the 46.7% that believe the increase will be "significantly more." As far as how their organizations might be affected, 40% think the law will have little to no effect; the majority (60%) feel it will affect them "somewhat" or "a lot."

1. FEATURE STORY:
EMPLOYEES POST INFO ONLINE AT THEIR OWN RISK 
 

 

Would you discipline an employee for posting racist or otherwise offensive material on his Facebook or MySpace page, if it was done on his own time using his own equipment?

 

In the borough of Paramus, NJ, a public worker employed by the Shade Tree and Parks Commission was recently suspended without pay for allegedly posting racist remarks on his Facebook page.

 

On January 19, which was Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the employee allegedly posted a greeting on his personal Facebook page wishing everyone "a happy James Earl Ray day." (James Earl Ray assassinated King.) The employee's Facebook page also featured a Kentucky Fried Chicken ad superimposed over an image of the White House. A racist slur was also used in referring to President Obama.


Although there are no allegations that the employee posted these things using borough equipment or during work hours, the employee identified himself as a borough employee on the website. Following several complaint calls to borough administrators the next morning (Inauguration Day), the employee was suspended pending completion of an investigation by the Bergen County Prosecutors' Office and the Paramus Police Department of whether the posting could be considered a bias crime.

 

The borough attorney will also look into whether the posting violates local workplace discrimination and employee conduct regulations. Borough code reportedly says employees can be fired for "conduct unbecoming of a public employee" or for harassing or discriminating against other employees.

 

The employee reportedly plans to consult an attorney about whether the borough's actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech (which, as a borough employee, he does have).

 

Public vs. Private 

Public employers and the military have long used the "conduct unbecoming" standard to keep employees in line even when off-duty.

 

In the private sector, some employers include "morals clauses" in their employment contracts; similar to "conduct unbecoming," it allows them to terminate employees for questionable personal behavior. Important: Employees signing these employment contracts know in advance what types of private behavior may put their jobs at risk.

 

In an at-will employment relationship, however, things get a little cloudier, although, generally, employees post publicly at their own risk. Tip: Let employees know that they are not protected by a right to privacy when blogging or posting on the Internet. Even with a setting that imposes some restrictions on who could view a post (as is common on Facebook and MySpace), there is arguably very little or no reasonable expectation of privacy. And if an employee posts proprietary or confidential company information or defamatory comments, the employer could rightfully sue.

 

In all fairness, however, employers should only fire employees for an off-duty, legal activity if:

  • the activity harms the employer's reputation or product;
  • the activity renders the employee unable to work or appear at work; or
  • the activity makes the employee's co-workers reluctant to work with him. 

Alert: 

  • Some states have laws prohibiting employers from disciplining employees for lawful, off-duty conduct.
  • An employee's online postings may be considered protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if they discuss wages or other terms and conditions of employment.

Best practice: Before taking any disciplinary action against an employee for their off-duty online activity, check with legal counsel.

2. CATHIE'S CORNER:
WHAT DOES YOUR DISCIPLINARY POLICY SAY ABOUT PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING EMPLOYEES?

For this week's blog, my baseball-loving spouse, fresh from watching "Hot Stove" on the MLB channel, suggested I write about employees who take performance-enhancing drugs. My first thought was, "Yeah, that would be a good topic if most of my readers owned or managed major league baseball teams. Or even minor league ones." But then I reconsidered....Continue the story.

3. DON'T GET TRAPPED BY FALSE IMPRISONMENT CHARGES

Conducting a closed-door interview with an employee is not an unusual way to investigate possible employee misconduct. But, in doing so, could you be making yourself vulnerable to claims of false imprisonment? Perhaps, if the employee believes that he/she is not free to leave the room. Find out what crosses the line from proper investigation to false imprisonment....Continue the story.

4. FREE REPORT: HOW TO WRITE JOB DESCRIPTIONS THAT ARE COMPLETE, ACCURATE, AND LEGALLY SOUND
 

Check out the new Free Report, "How To Write Job Descriptions That Are Complete, Accurate, And Legally Sound," which provides you with nine universal steps every employer can take to write solid job descriptions that keep your organization in step with the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) and the new Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) regulations.

5. HR SOAPBOX: GAINING A COMPETITIVE EDGE: HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?

Like it or not, performance-enhancing drugs may be the wave of the future. Not just for professional athletes...but for the average employee....Continue the story.

Like What You're Reading?
Sign Up To Receive Our Free E-Mail Newsletters

Employment Law Today

Benefits Alert

HR Soapbox Blog

E-Mail:  Go

Copyright © 2009 by Alexander Hamilton Institute, Inc.
Employment Law Resource Center at www.legalworkplace.com
ahinewsletter@legalworkplace.com
(800) 879-2441 • 70 Hilltop Road • Ramsey, NJ 07446
 

Copyright © 2009 Alexander Hamilton Institute | Home | Privacy Policy | About AHI | Contact Us | Site Map