Bennett & Belfort P.C.
The B&B Docket Blog
Developments in the Dynamic World
of Business and Employment Law

Archive for the ‘Employment’ Category

Supreme Judicial Court Affirms $2 Million Judgment upon jury verdict for Bennett & Belfort client Richard DaPrato against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority

Posted on: June 6th, 2019 by admin

On June 5, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed our client’s Suffolk Superior Court jury verdict and judgment in an amount now exceeding $2,000,000 in the case of Richard DaPrato v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) 482 Mass. 375 (2019) (click on link for SJC slip opinion: DaPrato v MWRA SJC 6.5.19 ).

Mr. DaPrato was represented both at trial and on appeal by David E. Belfort and Andrew S. McIlvaine of Bennett & Belfort, PC, of Cambridge and Robert S. Mantel of Powers, Jodoin, Margolis & Mantell LLP of Boston. Mr. DaPrato sued the MWRA for firing him because he took medical leave for foot surgery and because he planned to take additional leave in the future. Claims in the case included discrimination and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA (29 U.S.C. sec. 2601 et seq.)), The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, M.G.L. c. 151B.

In the Superior Court case, the jury strongly rejected the MWRA’s argument that Mr. Daprato violated the public trust. Instead, the jury found that the MWRA, a quasi-public entity, engaged in extreme and outrageous misconduct that violated Mr. DaPrato’s rights to medical leave.

On direct appellate review by the SJC, the MWRA sought a reversal of the jury’s decision and a new trial on a myriad of grounds, including that the jury should have been instructed that an honest but unconsciously biased decision to fire a person should excuse an employer from liability for FMLA discrimination. The SJC rejected the appeal, noting that the so-called “good faith or honest belief” FMLA defense relates to avoiding mandatory liquidated damage awards rather than excusing the underlying retaliatory conduct.

The SJC’s resounding rejection of the MWRA’s appeal reinforces the position that an employer cannot automatically presume a disabled employee is violating the terms of their medical leave when they go on vacation during medical leave. At trial, DaPrato’s supervisor acknowledged that he knew DaPrato was on medical leave and testified that had previously approved DaPrato’s vacation to Mexico. DaPrato’s treating physician confirmed that DaPrato was not cleared to return to work during the leave and vacation period. The physician also testified that DaPrato’s vacation activities did not violate his post-surgical restrictions. Furthermore, DaPrato entered his annual vacation in the office calendar system, received permission to park his car at the MWRA facility during the vacation, and attended a staff meeting where he announced that he was leaving on vacation to senior managers. Nonetheless, the MWRA did not seek to review his medical records, declined to conduct an independent medical examination, and ignored the FMLA paperwork that DaPrato submitted. Perhaps most shocking, the MWRA brazenly claimed that DaPrato denied going on vacation altogether when confronted. The SJC affirmed the punitive damages award in full, commenting that it underscored the jury’s conclusion that the MWRA acted in an extreme and outrageous manner. In allowing this punitive damages award to stand, the Court cited to DaPrato’s long tenure without any discipline, the punitive award’s reasonable relationship to the compensatory damages, and the litany of pretext evidence in the record.

The SJC’s decision affirms the trial judgment issued to Mr. DaPrato after his jury trial in the following specific amounts $19,777 in back pay, $188,666 in front pay, $200,000 in emotional distress, $715,385 in punitive damages, $208,443 in liquidated damages, and $605,690 in pre-appeal attorneys’ fees. Including statutory interest of 12%, the aggregate final judgment is expected to significantly exceed $2,000,000.  See Law 360 article: Law 360 6.5.19

Congratulations to our client, Rick DaPrato, and to the entire trial team at Bennett & Belfort PC.

Paid Family and Medical Leave is on the Horizon

Posted on: May 14th, 2019 by admin

Although it was ushered in quietly, the new Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave law (“PFML”), M.G.L. c. 175M, will represent a monumental change for both employers and workers. The statute will entitle qualifying workers to as many of 26 weeks of protected, paid medical and family leave. The PFML will apply not only to employees of small businesses, but in some cases, to “1099” contractors and self-employed individuals as well.

Leave Entitlements

Beginning January 1, 2021, covered workers may be entitled to (1) up to 20 weeks of paid medical leave in a benefit year if they have a serious health condition that incapacitates them from work; and (2) up to 12 weeks of paid family leave in a benefit year related to the birth, adoption, or foster care placement of a child, or because of a qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a family member is on active duty or has been notified of an impending call to active duty in the Armed Forces; and (3) up to 26 weeks of paid family leave in a benefit year to care for a family member who is a covered service member with a serious health condition.

Further, beginning July 1, 2012, covered individuals may be entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid family leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition.

Employers must continue to make their contributions to employee health insurance during leave.

In total, leave is restricted to an aggregate 26 weeks in a benefit year.

Departures from the FMLA

The Massachusetts PFML differs from its federal counterpart, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), in several key aspects:

  • Leave under the PFML is paid, based on the employee’s average weekly earnings, with a maximum benefit of $850 per week, paid through the Commonwealth in a fashion similar to unemployment.

 

  • Workers’ who meet the PFML’s “financial eligibility test” (based on previous earnings) may be entitled to leave even early in their employment, in contrast to the FMLA which applies only to employees who have worked for their employer for at least 12 months, and for no less than 1,250 hours.

 

  • “Family members” is expansively defined under the PFML, as a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent or parent of a spouse or domestic partner; a person who stood in loco parentis to the covered individual when the covered individual was a minor child; or a grandchild, grandparent or sibling.

 

  • Entitlement to PMFL is determined by the Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave, rather than by employers as under the FMLA.

 

  • Benefit years under the PFML are counted from the date a worker first takes leave.

Funding

The program will be funded through contributions from employees and employers. The program applies to employers of all sizes, with few exemptions. In some instances, it applies even to 1099 workers. Self-employed persons may choose to participate.

Starting July 1, 2019, employers must begin making deductions from employees’ wages to cover the anticipated benefits. Employers with 25 or more employees must contribute as well. Contributions will be remitted quarterly, and the Commonwealth will adjust benefit contributions annually.

Under narrow circumstances, an employer may attain an exemption from paying contributions. If an employer offers employees paid family leave, medical leave, or both, with benefits that are at least as generous as those provided under the law, the Commonwealth may grant an exemption.

Right to Reinstatement

Employers may not retaliate against employees who take leave under the PFML. Generally, employers must reinstate employees to their previous position or to an equal position, with the same status, pay, employment benefits, length-of-service credit, and seniority as of the date of leave. The reinstatement requires does not apply to “1099” contractors.

In court, a worker who was subject to an “adverse action” (e.g., termination, pay cut, change in seniority status) within six months of returning from leave is entitled to a presumption of retaliation, that can only be overcome is the employer makes a showing by clear and convincing evidence that its motive was not retaliatory.

Enforcement

Workers who believe they have been retaliated against in violation of the PFML may bring a civil action in Superior Court within three (3) years. Prevailing workers may be entitled to reinstatement, traditional tort remedies (e.g., pain and suffering); back pay and benefits, with the possibility of treble damages; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Choosing Arbitration in #metoo Cases

Posted on: February 26th, 2019 by admin

Over the past couple of years, as part of the ‘#metoo’ movement, many high-profile sexual harassment cases have been reported and discussed in the public eye. However, because many high-ranking corporate officers have employment agreements with arbitration terms, the resolution of many of these cases may end up shrouded in secrecy, away from the public eye.

For example, Leslie Moonves, former CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO, was terminated by CBS Corp. in September after multiple women alleged sexual misconduct against Moonves.  CBS refused to pay Mr. Moonves’ $120 million severance under his employment contract because he was terminated for cause, and therefore not eligible for the severance payment under the terms of his contract. However, pursuant to that same employment contract, the parties can elect to arbitrate disputes between Mr. Moonves and CBS.  Mr. Moonves elected for binding arbitration in January of 2019. This means that Moonves’ fight to challenge his ‘for cause’ termination – by litigating over whether he indeed engaged in sexual harassment – will be decided outside of the courts, in a confidential proceeding.

In binding arbitrations, the arbitrator has the ability to issue a decision that is recognized and enforced by courts. The process and detailed findings of the arbitrator, if any are made, are kept out of the public eye and these decisions are rarely subject to appeal through the courts.

Arbitration agreements are not just for millionaire CEOs like Moonves; all types of companies use these agreements with all levels of employees. Regularly, companies require employees to agree to arbitration for future claims against them as a condition of their employment.

 

 

How is arbitration different from litigation?

Arbitration certainly has its pros and cons for the parties. While it is quicker and often less expensive than litigation, arbitrators can still charge hundreds of dollars per hour.  Arbitrators are also not bound by the same rules of evidence or procedure that apply in court.  One “pro”, especially for Mr. Moonves, is the party who bears the cost can also be articulated in the employment agreement; CBS Corp. is paying Mr. Moonves’ legal bills and will cover the cost of arbitration if Mr. Moonves is successful in his challenge. The costs will be split if CBS’ decision is confirmed.

Critically for Moonves and CBS, arbitration is also less transparent then litigation. In litigation, proceedings are open to the public, and all of the parties’ case filings are public record, with rare exception.  Arbitrations are closed to the public, and the evidence, filings, and decisions are kept confidential.  In court litigation, parties are afforded wide latitude to perform discovery and obtain documents and other evidence from the opposing party. In arbitration, employees and employers are constrained in the types and volume of discovery they can seek.

In the Moonves case, both sides benefit from the confidential nature of arbitration.  This lack of transparency may help shield Mr. Moonves and CBS from future public scrutiny of their actions.  Often, employees would prefer to submit their claims to a jury of their peers and go after their employers in a public forum.

Courts generally enforce arbitrations agreements, and recent history, including cases like the Moonves case, show us that arbitration of employment disputes is here to stay.

We can help you approach all types of employment agreements, arbitration agreements and the arbitration process with confidence. Should you have any questions on this or any other employment matters, please feel free to contact Bennett & Belfort P.C.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/business/media/les-moonves-cbs-arbitration.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/les-moonves-to-fight-cbs-corp-for-120-million-severance-in-arbitration/

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/leslie-moonves-cbs-arbitration-severance-1203110471/

What the New Massachusetts Equal Pay Act Will Do to Address the Wage Gap, What It Means for Women, and How Women Can Use This Law in Their Favor

Posted on: March 30th, 2018 by admin

 

 

At First Glance

On July 23, 2016, the Massachusetts Legislature passed the Act to Establish Pay Equity (the “Equal Pay Act”), M.G.L. c.149, Section 105A, which is to take effect on July 1, 2018..

While the terms “equal” and “pay equity” come up frequently in discussions of the Equal Pay Act, the new law will not mandate that wages between women and their male coworkers be equal. However, it will increase transparency concerning wages, and make remedies available to women who are paid less than their male coworkers for “comparable work.”

The Equal Pay Act forces employers to evaluate their pay practices to ensure there is no discrimination in wages or salary on the basis of gender alone.  Further, the law provides employees with the freedom to discuss wages and salary amongst themselves, giving female employees more access to information about how their pay rates compare with those of male employees doing “comparable work.”

What is “Comparable Work”?

Employees who do “comparable work” are not simply employees with identical job titles or job descriptions.  Under the Equal Pay Act, two employees are said to perform “comparable work” if their jobs “require[s] substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility and [are] performed under similar working conditions.”

What Employers CANNOT Do under the Equal Pay Act

The Equal Pay Act states:  “No employer shall discriminate in any way on the basis of gender in the payment of wages, or pay any person in its employ a salary or wage rate less than the rates paid to its employees of a different gender for comparable work.” The Act also makes clear that if an employer is violating the Equal Pay Act by, for instance, paying female employees $20 per hour and male employees $22 per hour for comparable work, the employer may not lower everyone’s wages to $19 per hour just to become compliant with the law.

What Employers CAN Do under the Equal Pay Act

There are still six instances in which employers can legally pay different wages and/or salaries to people doing comparable work. Employers are NOT considered to be in violation of the Equal Pay Act if differences in pay are based on:

  1. Seniority with the employer, as long as seniority is not reduced by any time an employee spends on leave for a pregnancy-related condition or on parental, family or medical leave;
  2. A merit system;
  3. Certain productivity benchmarks;
  4. Differences in the geographic locations where the jobs are performed;
  5. Differences in employees’ education, training, or experience, if “reasonably related to the particular job in question”; or
  6. Differences in regularly required, necessary travel.

The Impact of the Equal Pay Act: Before the Job and on the Job

Before you get a job, an employer cannot request your wage or salary history from you or from your current or former employer, nor can an employer require that your prior wage or salary history meet certain criteria. But if you volunteer such information to an employer that is considering hiring you, the employer may:

  1. Confirm your prior wages, or permit you to confirm prior wages or salary; or
  2. Seek or confirm your wage or salary history after an offer of employment with compensation has been negotiated and made to you, the prospective employee.

Once you start work and are on the job, an employer cannot require that, to keep your job, you refrain from asking other employees about their wages or from sharing information about your own wages.

Importantly, an employer cannot fire or otherwise retaliate against you if you challenge anything the employer does that is in violation of the Equal Pay Act; mention an intention to complain about such conduct; participate in any investigation or proceeding concerning a violation of the Equal Pay Act; disclose your own wages or salary; or discuss other employees’ wages or salaries with them.

What Do You Do If Your Employer Is Violating the Equal Pay Act?

You may take legal action against your employer for any violation of the Equal Pay Act. Such an action must be taken within three years after the date of the alleged violation.

What Are the Possible Results of Taking Legal Action Against Your Employer for an Equal Pay Act Violation?

If your employer is found to have violated the Equal Pay Act, the employer may be required to compensate you for unpaid wages, plus an equal amount of liquidated damages (an amount of damages that is calculable by the Court). In addition to any judgment obtained, you would be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with your action, to be paid by the employer.

Employment Agreements and Lack of Intent to Discriminate are NOT Defenses.

If you are a female employee receiving less pay than a male colleague for comparable work (and none of the exceptions described above apply), this is a violation of the Equal Pay Act even if your employer insists it didn’t mean to discriminate; whether the employer meant to or not is irrelevant under the law. Furthermore, even if you signed a contract when you were hired agreeing to a wage that was less than what the Act legally entitled you to, your employer cannot use the agreement as a way to avoid legal responsibility for the violation. Similarly, if you were paid less at a previous job than the Equal Pay Act now entitles you to, this cannot be used by your current employer as a justification for illegally underpaying you.

An Employer’s Line of Defense: The “Self-Evaluation”

An employer who is found to have violated the Equal Pay Act has a potentially valid defense if it can show (a) that it has conducted a “Self Evaluation” of its own pay practices within three years of the violation, and (b) that it has made “reasonable progress… towards eliminating the wage differentials based on gender for comparable work in accordance with that evaluation.” While the Attorney General may, in the future, establish specific requirements for the detail and scope of an employer’s Self Evaluation, there are no such requirements in the current version of the Equal Pay Act. It is up to the judge or other arbiter evaluating a case to determine whether the employer’s evaluation was sufficient.

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.

$1.2M Bennett & Belfort Verdict Receives National Attention

Posted on: February 8th, 2018 by admin

ReservoirThe January 18, 2018, Richard DaPrato v Massachusetts Water Resources Authority $1,235,000 jury verdict has generated national media attention.  Mr. DaPrato sued the MWRA for firing him because he took medical leave for foot surgery and planned future leave.  He sued the MWRA in Suffolk Superior Court based on claims for discrimination and retaliation under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA (29 U.S.C. sec. 2601 et seq.)), The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and under the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, M.G.L. c. 151B.

2013-david-b-photo-150x150Mr. DaPrato was represented in the litigation by Bennett & Belfort partner David E. Belfort  and senior associate Andrew S. McIlvaine .   They co-counseled with attorney Robert S. Mantell of Powers, Jodoin, Margolis & Mantell LLP of Boston.  After 7.5 days of trial and a second day of deliberations the 14 person jury found that Mr. DaPrato was deliberately retaliated against for taking medical leave for surgery and seeking future leave.  The jury’s award is broken down as follows:

$    19,777.00 Lost Back Pay

$  300,000.00  Lost Front Pay

$  200,000.00 Emotional Distress

$  715,385.00  Punitive Damages

$1,235,162.00 Total Jury Award

 

The final judgment has not yet been issued, but is expected to include pre-judgment interest, liquidated damages under the FMLA and attorneys’ fees as permitted by state and federal law.

EMPLOYER ALERT: NEW PREGNANT WORKER LAW STARTS APRIL 1ST

Posted on: January 25th, 2018 by admin

pregnant women

On April 1, 2018, An Act Establishing the Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, (“PWFA”) goes into effect.  All employers in Massachusetts should be aware of this law.  The PWFA extends the protections of Massachusetts anti-discrimination law (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 151B) to pregnant workers within the Commonwealth, and grants additional safeguards for pregnant workers seeking workplace accommodations relating to their pregnancy. The PWFA specifically extends coverage for pregnancy, and related conditions, including lactation.

Essentially, the PWFA applies the reasonable accommodation standards that are used in disability cases to pregnancy, and requires employers to engage in an interactive process and to provide employees reasonable accommodations, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The PWFA includes a non-exhaustive list of specific accommodations that may be available to pregnant employees, including:

(1)   Time off to recover from childbirth (with or without pay);

(2)   More frequent or longer breaks (with or without pay);

(3)   Temporary transfer to a less strenuous/hazardous position;

(4)   Job restructuring;

(5)   Light duty;

(6)   Private non-bathroom space for expressing breast milk;

(7)   Assistance with manual labor; or

(8)   Modified work schedules.

The PWFA requires the need to engage in an interactive process, which is essentially a dialogue between the employee and employer concerning possible accommodations that may be available.

The PWFA also makes it illegal for an employer to: (1) retaliate against pregnant workers who seek accommodations, (2) refuse to hire an individual who may need an accommodation  relating to pregnancy or the need to express breast milk; (3) require a pregnant or lactating employee to accept an accommodation that does not enable them to perform the essential functions of their job; (4) require a pregnant or lactating employee to take a leave of absence, when other accommodations may be available; and (5) refuse to hire an individual because of her pregnancy ore related condition.

Importantly, all employers covered by the act are required to provide written notification to existing employees of their rights under the PWFA on or before April 1, 2018, and new employees at the start of their employment.

As with other violations of Chapter 151B, employers who fail to comply with the provisions set forth in the PWFA may be liable for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

 

 

Bennett & Belfort secures $1,235,000 Jury Verdict v MWRA

Posted on: January 18th, 2018 by admin

2013-david-b-photo-150x150A Suffolk County jury today awarded $1,235,000 to Richard DaPrato against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). In reaching today’s verdict, the jury concluded that the MWRA deliberately retaliated against Mr. DaPrato  after 11 years of unblemished service by firing him for taking medical leave for surgery, and for requesting future leave.

Mr. DaPrato was represented by David E. Belfort of Bennett & Belfort PC of Cambridge and Robert S. Mantel of Powers, Jodoin, Margolis & Mantell LLP of Boston. The jury strongly rejected the Authority’s argument that Mr. Daprato violated the public trust.  Instead, the jury found that the MWRA, a public entity, violated Mr. DaPrato’s rights to medical leave under both the Family Medical Leave Act and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act (M.G.L. 151B)

The Jury awarded Mr. Daprato $320,000 in lost pay damages, including his future pension losses, in addition to $200,000 in emotional distress damages.  The Jury issued punitive damages to deter future outrageous conduct by the MWRA in an amount of $715,000.

David Belfort said, “This decision affirms the rights of employees to request and take legally protected medical leave without being subjected to adverse action.”

The final judgment, which has not yet been entered, will also include pre-judgment interest and a petition for Mr. DaPrato’s attorneys’ fees is forthcoming.  (See Jury Verdict Slip Below)

DaPrato Verdict 1.18.18_Page_1DaPrato Verdict 1.18.18_Page_2

 

Partner, Eric LeBlanc, quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly Article Regarding an Employee’s Successful Post-Termination Claim of Workplace Retaliation

Posted on: January 11th, 2018 by admin

wwa_eric-117x150Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly sought commentary from Bennett & Belfort partner, Eric LeBlanc, in its article on a recent U.S. Bankruptcy Court decision concerning a contract worker’s claim against her former employer’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate for severance pay.  (“At-will worker can seek severance against bankruptcy estate: Company’s failure to offer benefits deemed retaliatory,” Mass. Lawyers Weekly, December 21, 2017.)  Dr. Christine Briggs, while an at-will employee of Genesys Research Institute, Inc., was one of a number of workers who filed whistleblower complaints against the company for alleged misuse of restricted funds.  Although an employer is not required to offer severance pay when laying off an at-will employee, Dr. Briggs discovered that when Genesys terminated at-will employees in a series of layoffs prior to filing for bankruptcy, it had systematically offered severance to those who had not lodged whistleblower complaints but failed to offer severance to those who had made complaints.  In the case, In Re: Genesys Research Institute, Inc., Justice Joan Feeney concluded that the employer’s conduct was retaliatory, and thus Dr. Briggs, although an at-will employee, was entitled to claim severance pay.

Attorney LeBlanc remarked that the Judge’s decision is significant because the court sustained a claim concerning an employer’s retaliatory conduct that occurred after the employee’s termination.  “There are mitigating factors in this case because it was a bankruptcy decision with a different burden-shifting, and the trustee made limited attempts to refute the claim,” Attorney LeBlanc told Lawyers Weekly. “But it could still be applicable in assisting plaintiffs in getting over an initial hurdle regarding a potential retaliatory action that occurs post-termination… Put more simply, you can use post-termination employer behavior to potentially prove either discrimination or retaliatory animus.”

From a common-sense, layperson’s perspective, it goes without saying that retaliation and discrimination by any person or entity against another can post-date the technical termination of the relationship between perpetrator and victim.  The case law in this regard is, however, a work in progress.

BENNETT AND BELFORT, P.C. PARTNER, TODD BENNETT, QUOTED IN THE BOSTON BUSINESS JOURNAL

Posted on: December 8th, 2017 by admin


tb-124x150Bennett and Belfort, P.C. partner, Todd Bennett, was quoted in the November 29, 2017 Boston Business Journal article entitled, “Biotech’s #MeToo Moment.” https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/11/29/biotech-s-metoo-moment-lawyers-say-bias-harassment.html.  The article is about the recent uptick in claims of sexual harassment and gender discrimination being brought by female employees in the biotech industry.  Attorney Bennett stated that in his experience, there remains an “inaccurate stereotype among leadership, which is predominantly male, that women lack the scientific acumen to either perform the necessary functions of their jobs or to be promoted to a leadership role,” which is oftentimes used as a “pretext for the failure to promote or hire.”

In light of the current publicity concerning widespread sexual harassment by prominent and powerful figures in the entertainment and media industries, we believe that more and more women are realizing not only that it is permissible and personally empowering to  speak out when subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination at their jobs, but that these complaints may very well give others the courage to come forward and may prevent future employees from suffering the severe emotional distress caused by such unacceptable and unlawful behavior.

National Business Institute (NBI) Human Resource Law Seminar

Posted on: August 11th, 2017 by admin

 

wwa_eric-117x150
On July 12, 2017, Bennett & Belfort partner Eric R. LeBlanc spoke at the National Business Institute (NBI) Human Resource Law Seminar alongside Debra Dyleski‑Najjar, Julie A. Moore, Sarah E. Worley, Laurel M. Gilbert, Richard S. Loftus and Jeffrey S. Siegel.  Attorney LeBlanc and the other speakers shared their knowledge and perspectives on various aspects of human resource law, addressing such topics as “Updates in Employment Law;” “Discipline & Discharge- Necessary Documentation;” “Employee Handbooks & Policies;” “Wage & Benefits Issues;” “Investigating Complaints of Harassment & Other Misconduct;” and “Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment.”

Eric spoke about proper procedures to follow and pitfalls to avoid during all phases of the employer-employee relationship:  the hiring process, the period of employment, and the employee’s exit from employment, whether voluntary or involuntary.

Eric’s lecture touched on the following fundamentals:

A. Hiring:  How to craft a clear job description; what to look for, what to say and do, and what not to say and do how during selection and         vetting of candidates.

B. Policies and procedures:  Establishing unequivocal, written policies in the following areas and following them closely:

  1. Employment at Will
  2. Equal Opportunity
  3. Anti- Discrimination/Anti-Harassment/Reporting(including the process for investigating employee complaints of discrimination and harassment)
  4. Payment of Wages
  5. Conduct/Discipline

C. Performance:  Careful, contemporaneous documentation of employees’ job performance.

D. Termination:  Again, careful and contemporaneous documentation of the process as well as the presence of at least one witness to the employer-employee interactions.

Eric emphasized to seminar attendees that no matter how egregious an employee’s performance might be, compassion and respect are crucial elements of an employer’s stance at every point on the employment time line.

We are proud that Eric’s expertise in employment law was recognized by the National Business Institute, and pleased that he was able to contribute to employers’ understanding of practices beneficial to both sides of the employer-employee relationship.