Company Liable for Failing to Prevent Sexual Harassment
No one can argue that it was fun to work for Ramez Suliman, the president and on-site manager of Fresno-based Artifer USA.
No one can argue that it was fun to work for Ramez Suliman, the president and on-site manager of Fresno-based Artifer USA.
In recent years, many employers have begun offering employees stock ownership in the company either in lieu of bonuses, or as deferred compensation—often called Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs).
Managers are often tempted to “sugar coat” the reasons an employee is terminated for poor performance, particularly when hard economic times support the contention. But, according to attorney Allen M. Kato, counsel at the San Francisco office of law firm Fenwick & West, LLP, this could turn very sour if the employee is inclined to […]
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has revised its “EEO is the Law” workplace poster.
You have strong reason to suspect that an employee has engaged in serious misconduct, such as theft or sexual harassment. But you don’t want to fire the employee based solely on suspicion. So instead, you place the employee on unpaid leave until you’re able to complete your internal investigation.
Many California employers are surprised to learn that they must give all departing employees notice of their right to seek unemployment benefits—even if it’s a termination for good cause, and even if an employee leaves voluntarily.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has officially dropped the controversial “no-match” rule, which required employers to fire workers if there was a discrepancy between a worker’s Social Security Number (SSN) and official government records. The rule also imposed penalties on employers who didn’t fire employees if the discrepancy wasn’t quickly explained.
This week (Oct. 5-9) is Customer Service Week, a time to thank those with an often-thankless job.
Under both the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers cannot require employees returning from leave to submit to a medical examination unless such an examination is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
The California Supreme Court is currently considering the scope of employer meal break obligations under state law. The question before the court is whether employers must only “provide” a meal break, or “ensure” that employees take meal breaks. There’s no indication of when the court will be making its ruling.