What You Need to Know to Pass Your NYPD Police Officer Exam

June 30th, 2008

Ever since its inception the New York Police District department has been one of the top police departments in the country. It has always been very consistent in being one of the best police groups out there. This is because of all the brave men and women that make up the NYPD. This people are a select group of individuals that went through a very extensive process just to get in to the police force. This people are part of an elite group that passed all the exams given by the department for new police officers.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Marcegaglia harassment settlement

June 29th, 2008

Marcegaglia USA Inc of Munhall has agreed to pay $75,000 to a woman and attorneys who claimed in a lawsuit she was the victim of sexual harassment at the company, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity …

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Illegal to Discriminate Because of Abortion

June 28th, 2008

On May 30, 2008, in the case of Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. ‘ 2000e, et seq. (ATitle VII) protects a woman from discrimination because she had an abortion. The Third Circuit is the federal appellate court that includes the state of New Jersey, as well as Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Saginaw County unemployment hits 9.1 percent

June 27th, 2008

Unemployment in the Saginaw-Saginaw Township labor market hit 9.1 percent in May, the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth said.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Are You Entitled to Overtime Compensation?

June 26th, 2008

The issue of whether an employee is entitled to overtime compensation has been a hotly contested and litigation issue lately in California. The main reason behind his is the fact that whether an employee is entitled to overtime wages is a factual inquiry that depends on the specific facts and circumstance of one’s employment.

There are, however, several hard principles that are important to be aware of with regard to overtime wages, whether you are an employer or an employee:

1. Overtime compensation cannot be waived. Any agreement by an employee to waive overtime pay or to accept less that the statutory rate he is due is invalid and unenforceable. In other words, even if the employer and employee sign a written agreement in which they will agree that the employee will not seek overtime pay, the employee will still be able to sue and prevail in later demanding overtime pay for the hours worked in excess of the statutory workweek.

2. Overtime rate of wage - in California, the employer must be employee one-and-a-half time of his “regular” rate for each and every hour worked above 40 hours per week, or for any time worked beyond 8 hours per day. The employer is to pay double time when the employee works over 12 hours in a day. Under state law, the regular rate of pay is calculated by dividing a weekly salary into 40 hours or a normal workweek. Regular rate includes bonuses and commissions that the employee might be earning as part of his wages. That the commission is paid on a basis other than weekly, and that payment is delayed for a time past the employee’s normal pay day or pay period, do not excuse the employer from including this payment in the employee’s regular rate.

3. Certain employees are exempt from overtime laws. Under federal law, workers employed in a bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity are exempt from overtime wage benefits.

Certain kinds of employees are also exempt from overtime rules as a matter of law. This include amusement park/recreational park employees, outside sales persons, seamen, criminal investigators, computer system analysts, baby sitters and personal attendants.

If negotiated as part of Collective Bargaining Agreement, employers may require employees to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay, provided that no more than 1,040 hours are worked during any period of 26 consecutive weeks; or no more than 2,240 hours are worked during any period of 52 consecutive weeks. Further, State overtime law doesn’t apply to employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides an hourly rate at least 30% than the minimum wage, and “premium” wage rates for overtime work.

4. The time that counts toward overtime except regular working hours: Stanby or “on call” time may be compensable under Federal law, if it is spent primarily for the benefit of the employer and his business. This of course, depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Under California law, an employee must be paid for time considered to be on duty while on employer’s premises.

Just setup and preparation time may also be compensable if these activities are an integral part of the employee’s principal activity, such as oiling, greasing and cleaning an operating machine before using it as part of the job duties.

Travel time and commuting between home and work is generally not compensable under the Portal-to-Portal Act. Even if the employer provides a car for the employee’s use in commuting to and from work does not make the commute time compensable.

Meal periods generally not compensable if the employee is relieved of all duties. If, however, an employee may not leave the workplace (gas station employees, 7/11, etc…), the meal period counts as time worked for overtime purposes, even if the employee is relieved of all work duties during mealtime.

Training - time spend attending lectures, training programs or meetings is not compensable if (i) the attendance is outside regular working hours, (ii) voluntary, (iii) the session covers material not directly related to the employee’s job, and (iv) if the employee does not perform any productive work during the session.

No seven-day work weeks - California law provides that every employee is entitled to one day’s rest in seven and prohibits employers from requiring employees to work more than six days in seven consecutive days. This seventh-day-off requirement does not apply where the employee works fewer than 30 hours a week or six hours in any one day during the week.

5. Taking time off in lieu of overtime - Under California law, employers may not require employees to take time off in lieu of overtime compensation. But employees have the right to request compensatory time off at the rate of one-and-one-half hours off for each hour of overtime worked provided that a written agreement establishes this arrangement before performance of the work.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Forfeiture hearings against Detroit mayor delayed

June 25th, 2008

The Detroit City Council is delaying forfeiture of office proceedings against Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Employment Testing and Equal Opportunity

June 24th, 2008

Most Published EzineArticles in the Legal:Employment-Law Category

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Death Knell for Dominance in 401(k)s, Edelman Says

June 23rd, 2008

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in LaRue v DeWolff to permit workers in 401 plans to sue administrators for high fees will inevitably lead to lower fees - and the end of the retail mutual fund industry’s …

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

With Absenteeism on the Rise What Can You Do to Prevent Somebody Abusing the System?

June 22nd, 2008

Dealing with Absenteeism

The level of absenteeism by way of frequent short-term sickness absence is an issue of serious concern to most businesses. The employer should deal carefully and sympathetically with disabled employees and those who are absent through long-term illness but businesses are entitled to adopt rigorous standards when it comes to dealing with frequent short-term absence for various unrelated reasons.

The first method of dealing with absenteeism is through financial incentives. The employer might monthly bonuses for 100% attendance and, at the same time, pay no sick pay at all for the first three days of sickness absence.

The alternative is to adopt an absenteeism policy and follow a disciplinary approach. The law allows employers to issue warnings and then dismiss employees who fail to meet the established standards of attendance. For example, some polices provide that employees will be issued with a written warning after four separate periods of sickness absence in any rolling twelve month period. The employee progresses to a final written warning after two further periods of sickness absence in the following six months and is then dismissed if there are two further periods of sickness absence in the final six months. This kind of absenteeism policy will generally be upheld by the Employment Tribunal and any dismissal will be found to be fair.

In order to justify dismissal on the basis of the disciplinary approach, the employer will need to have complied with certain standards including:-

(a) The employer should set out attendance standards in a policy made known to employees to ensure that employees know where they stand and that there is consistency between employees.
(b) The employee should not be given warnings or be dismissed without a formal disciplinary hearing and a right to appeal.
(c) The employer needs to check that the frequent short term absences are not all linked and are part of one underlying condition. If there is an underlying condition, then the employer must follow a different (and more complex) process prior to dismissal.
(d) The employer must assume that all sickness absences are genuine. The allegation that a particular sickness absence is not genuine is an allegation of misconduct and is a quite separate matter.
(e) There are certain kinds of sickness absence that need to be disregarded as part of an absenteeism policy and this includes any sickness absence relating to pregnancy as well as time off to look after dependents and for various kinds of statutory leave.

Assuming that the above conditions are satisfied and the employer has properly followed an established absenteeism policy, the employee who is dismissed is almost certain to lose an unfair dismissal claim. In practice, the introduction of a rigorous absenteeism policy can have a positive effect on attendance levels.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

Michigan jobless rate highest since 1992

June 21st, 2008

Blame the sluggish economy and summer job-seekers for pushing Michigan’s unemployment rate to 8.5 percent last month, its highest since October 1992.

Read more

Posted in Employment Law Cases | No Comments »

« Previous Entries