This & That Tuesday 13.8.27
|
Here is the latest issue of “This & That” Tuesday. I hope you find it to be informative and useful.
Announcements You can always check out my website for upcoming speaking engagements that are guaranteed to be of value to business owners or for a list of topics that I can speak on at Chambers, Clubs, Business Associations, etc. More details about the events, topics and Human Resources 4U, in general, can be found on my website.
September 27, "Discovering Business in the New Economy" hosted by AltaPacific Bank and Montgomery Niemeyer & Co.
Fact Sheet WARN California In California the WARN act is regulated by Labor Code sections 1400-1408
What employers are covered? Employers with 100 or more full-time employees
What is covered? Relocations, Terminations, and Mass Layoffs
What does it require? Employers must provide 60 days advance notice of mass layoffs or plant closings to employees and the EDD in accordance with the Federal WARN act requirements
What is a “plant closing”?
What is a “mass layoff”?
What is “employment loss”?
What are the notice requirements? An employer must provide written notice to affected employees and/or union representatives that is received by those individuals at least 60 days before the event Notice must also be provided to local government and the appropriate State dislocated worker unit
Exceptions: In the following circumstance, an employer may avoid the 60 day notice requirement and provide notice as soon as possible by requesting the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations grant an exemption:
What are the potential penalties?
Up to a maximum of 60 days or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is smaller
Top WARN tips
RockTenn Services Pays $500,000 to Settle Race Harassment Suit RockTenn Services Company, Inc. an Atlanta-based manufacturing company will pay $500,000 to 14 employees and provide other significant relief to settle a racially hostile environment lawsuit brought by the EEOC.
According to the EEOC's suit a class of African-American employees were subjected to violent, racist graffiti, including "KKK," swastikas, Confederate flags, "white power" and other racist terms, including "die, n—-r, die." RockTenn employees also saw hangman's nooses displayed at its Dallas paper mill. Several employees were referred to by racist slurs including "n—-r." Michael Scott, who filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, was a called a "n—-r" by his supervisor. Scott later discovered a noose at his work station. The EEOC complained that RockTenn officials repeatedly ignored the complaints of racist graffiti even after it was reported to management on multiple occasions, including at monthly labor-management meetings.
"Racism in any form is bad enough, but racist graffiti that included Confederate flags and death wishes accompanied by vile racist epithets go far beyond the pale even of prejudice," said the EEOC. "Terms like 'KKK' evoke violent and threatening attitudes towards African-Americans.
RockTenn should have immediately responded to the reports of racist graffiti instead of permitting their employees to work in an atmosphere full of these menacing, racist taunts." "This case demonstrates racism at its most hateful level. The violations in this case are especially odious in light of the multiple reports of racist graffiti made by numerous employees. The EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue employers that violate their workers' rights."
The two-year consent decree settling the case provides for an injunction against RockTenn that prohibits the company from further discriminating against any employee or harassing any employee on the basis of race. RockTenn will pay $500,000 in monetary relief and will conduct annual anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training. As part of the decree, RockTenn also agreed to implement an anti-graffiti policy, which requires the company to conduct weekly monitoring of its facilities and to also discipline any employee found to have created graffiti.
Dillard's pays $2 million to Settle Discrimination Suit Department store chain Dillard's has agreed to pay $2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the retailer of breaking federal disability laws by requiring workers asking for sick leave to disclose private medical conditions.
The EEOC said it started investigating after a Dillard's worker in El Centro said she was fired after refusing to disclose her exact medical problems to a manager who would not accept her doctor's note in seeking sick leave.
"The assistant manager said [the doctor's note] doesn't say what's wrong with you," said Corina Scott, a former Dillard's cosmetics clerk. "I firmly refused to tell and she said 'OK, you're terminated."
The EEOC alleges that Dillard's implemented a nationwide policy in 2005 that affected thousands of workers, requiring those asking for excused absences for illness to not only give a doctor's note but also disclose the medical condition they were being treated for. That violated the American with Disabilities Act protecting workers from being forced to disclose private medical information, the commission charged.
The commission's regional attorney said some workers felt they had no choice but to disclose extremely personal conditions such as cancer and mental health problems just to keep their jobs.
The commission said it also investigated complaints that Dillard's fired workers for taking more sick leave than the maximum number of days allowed by the retailer, which also violated disability discrimination laws.
As part of the settlement, Dillard's not only agreed to pay $2 million to compensate workers affected but also to hire a consultant to review and revise its employment policy.
Factoids
Quotes “You’ll fall for anything if you don’t stand for something.” Eartha Kitt |