Posts Tagged ‘workplace’

Questions not to ask

Advice for employers, at job interviews (“Interview questions you shouldn’t ask”, HRHero.com, Jun. 17, adapted from Louisiana Employment Law Letter)(via Michael at George Lenard’s).

More: reader Mark Moss comments:

The first item on the list of questions you can’t ask prospective employees is, “What is your age?” But sitting on my desk right now is a memo from HR about “I-9 Compliance Update”. The DHS requires me to show my employer documents showing citizenship or right to work in this country — either 1 from list A (e.g., a passport), or one each from list B and C (e.g., driver’s license and Social Security card).

Apparently, HR is on their honor to skip over the date of birth listed on these documents.

And: George Lenard writes in to say:

Regarding the above observation, as I noted in our comments section, there is a distinction between illegal and unwise questions.

ASKING about age when it’s irrelevant is a red flag, smoking gun or whatever, not to mention divisive. (Response: “What’s it to you, youngster? How old are YOU, son?”).

KNOWING about age incidentally, whether from passport, birth certificate, drivers license, or gray hair, wrinkles, and baldspot, is inevitable at some point. I’d look to keeping such information out of the early screening process at least, so the early rejects can’t claim age discrim (OK, you and I both know they can CLAIM and SUE for anything whatsoever; I’m talking about doing so without confronting a strong defense — employer’s ignorance.)

Opinionistas blog

“I like employment law because it revolves entirely around crazy people,” explains the anonymous “Opinionistas,” who claims to be a junior associate at a prominent New York firm, at least until senior partners discover her cynical blog:

“Honey, how was your day?” “Um, well, actually I got pissed off and peed all over the floor of the ER, in front of 2 potential cardiac arrests and a trauma victim, so I’m kinda fired. But it was discrimination! They actually fired me because I’m one-fifteenth Native American on my mother’s side!” So the guy gets a scummy lawyer to take his case, he sues the hospital, and the hospital calls us for help. Then we demand to see the Urinator’s (I come up with little nicknames for all of them) personal email account. Then the real fun begins. Hours spent reading about his extramarital flirtation with Marta, the 3rd floor nurse anesthetist, his anger with his boss for not permitting 3 20-minute coffee breaks each morning, his wife’s current interest (or lack thereof) in sex.

She also has summer associate gossip (via Legal Reader).

Norway: porn-surfing on the job not a firing offense?

The Norway Supreme Court has ruled that Conoco Phillips owes two workers about $40,000 each for firing them for looking at Internet porn on the job. (Jonathan Tisdall, “Final porn decision”, Aftenposten English, Apr. 22).

The Aftenposten story has been widely repeated on the web, but it’s worth noting that the supposed decision has not yet been catalogued on the English version of the Norges Høyesterett website, though that site is only up to date to March 31. That said, this page looks suspiciously like the decision in question, though my Norwegian language skills are decidedly limited. I further note that it is utterly charming that Norway is sufficiently non-litigious otherwise that its Supreme Court apparently has the time to regularly decide appeals of speeding tickets. (& letter to the editor, Jul. 13).

£204.53 dispute, £350,000 cost of defense

In Bexleyheath, Kent, England, Michelle Alabaster is celebrating her victory in a nine-year legal battle over a government mistake which led her private employer to undercalculate the amount of maternity leave owed her in 1995. The case ramified and went up to the appeals level before its recent resolution, under which Ms. Alabaster was found indeed entitled to the disputed £204.53; Her Majesty’s government estimates that it spent £350,000 defending its side of the dispute. The disproportion is not actually as irrational as it might seem, however, since the issues contested are likely to affect entitlement to maternity leave in many other cases (Becky Barrow, “Mother wins maternity case after nine years”, Daily Telegraph, May 4).

Age bias, inflicted by someone older

A 63-year-old West Texas woman has won an age-discrimination suit against a company run by an entrepreneur who is 72.

On Friday, a Dallas jury awarded Garlan Cunningham of Ranger more than $965,000 for lost wages, mental anguish and punitive damages after being derided as an “old nag,” a possible Alzheimer’s victim and an “old fart,” her attorneys said Monday.

Cunningham said Doris Richeson, a septuagenarian herself, organized the campaign of ridicule, which included an email referring to Cunningham as a lazy cowhand who’d been “in the saddle too long”. The company of which Richeson is founder and chairman operates 49 Dairy Queens in Texas; it denies Cunningham’s allegations and says it plans appeal. (Barry Shlachter, “Texas woman wins discrimination suit”, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Apr. 12).