Friday, November 16, 2007

What else I'm reading this week #5


Another week, another batch of excellent employment law and HR-related posts from the blogosphere.

30 Interview Questions You Can't Ask and 30 Sneaky, Legal Alternatives to Get the Same Info, from HR World, answering the question of what can and cannot be asked of applicants during job interviews and how to still obtain relevant, job-related information without discriminating. As an aside, I don't find the alternatives "tricky." There's nothing underhanded about asking an interviewee what days he or she is available for work instead of asking about religion, or asking whether an employee is available to work on short notice or overtime (if it is required) instead of whether he or she has small children at home. It's simply good practice to determine as much as you can about an applicant's fit for a position while staying within the parameters of what is an is not legal to ask.

Employee Resigns - Walk Them Out the Door Or Let Them Work a Notice?, from The HR Capitalist, on the issue of whether or not to accept a two-week notice from a resigning employee.

New Child Care Option: Bring Baby to Work?, from the ABA Journal, on employers who allow employees to bring their children with them to work.

"Supreme Court To Decide Age Discrimination Case!" - Is This Important to Employers in Connecticut?, from the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, citing yours truly and remarking that the Supreme Court's decision in Federal Express v. Holowecki will most likely have little practice effect because of the idiosyncrasies of EEOC practice under the ADEA. While we're discussing Federal Express v. Holowecki, I should mention that in Ohio this case means even less. Ohio's employment discrimination statute provides for a private right of action with no requirement of first filing a discrimination charge with any agency, state or federal. Employees in Ohio can go to court on any discrimination claim without ever having even thought about the civil rights commission or the EEOC. The only caveat is that age claims filed in this way have a 6 month statute of limitations, while all other types of discrimination have a 6 year statute.

Do You Feel Dirty When You Google Candidates?, also from The HR Capitalist, advising why employers should be "Googling" job candidates. Let me add that as long as companies are Googling all applicants, and not singling out those of certain protected classes, there is nothing inherently unlawful about this practice.

Work/Life Balance, the NFL and Bereavement Leave, also from The HR Capitalist, commenting on he Minnesota Vikings docking wide receiver Troy Williamson one game check for missing a game against to attend the funeral of his grandmother.

Tracking employees who are slackers, from Sequence Inc. FRAUDfiles, feigning surprise that employees abuse paid leave policies.

Public Policy Dictates that Web-Based Privileged Emails Be Protected, Notwithstanding Employer's Right to Inspect Laptop Contents under Email Policy : Electronic Discovery Law, from Electronic Discovery Law, reporting on Sims v. Lakeside School, a federal employment discrimination case out of Washington State, which held that an employee has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of an employer-furnished laptop, including emails sent and received on an employer email account, but preserving the privilege of emails sent to his lawyer and spouse.

Latest Posts