Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Managing within the Law

Law in Action
by

Melissa Maben

on 5 November 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Managing within the Law

Discrimination
Managing within the Law
zoom in
Wage & Hour
Employment
Privacy
Wrongful Termination
What are my rights?
Unlawful Harassment
1. Increase familiarity with
key areas of
2. Grievance
employment law
a fair working
prevention
environment
Not
FAVORABLE treatment,
EQUAL
Equal Employment Opportunity Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Disparate
treatment
vs.
impact
be
consistent
a
legitimate
in
&
document
events
HR
defer to
This case can be found at
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/5346/index.do
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Reasonable expectation of privacy
Zone of Privacy
rational basis
compelling interest?
Creating a
Recognize:
visual sexual harassment
work environment
Retaliation
Good Cause for Termination
The Value of Diversity
Employment Law
Cynthia Bates and Toni Daugherty were deputy sheriffs in the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. Deputy Sheriff Craig Nelson was assigned as Bates' and Daugherty's "training officer". Nelson made lewd, suggestive and sexually offensive comments, touched Bates on her thigh and legs, asked her about her sex life and made repeated comments about oral sex and sodomy. Nelson grabbed Daugherty on the buttocks.

Bates and Daugherty reported Nelson's behavior and internal affairs commenced investigation. Nelson was suspended without pay for 14 days (later diminished to 2 days in arbitration).

Bates and Daugherty sued the County and Nelson under Title VII and FEHA. Nelson requested the County to defend and indemnify him. The County refused, taking the position that Nelson acted outside the scope of employment when sexually harassing the deputies.
[December 6, 1995]
Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara,
"Jail House Harassment"
Jury awarded damages of $2.1 Million against the County.

The California Supreme Court decided than the County was not obligated to reimburse a supervisory employee (Nelson) who was forced to pay money to settle a sexual harassment claim.

Nelson settled with Bates and Daugherty in the amount of $150,000 out of court.
Listen
Empathize
Ask, "What do you want me to do?"
promise to fix the problem

How do I handle a complaint?
How do I protect myself?
DON'T
Promise to investigate and check back promptly
Schedule a follow-up meeting within 1-2 weeks
Immediately contact HR
Gordon v. Goertz
Gordon (the mother) and Goertz (the father) lived in Saskatoon until their separation in 1990. Gordon petitioned for divorce and at trial was granted permanent custody of the young child while the father received generous access.




Gordon applied to have the child's residence moved to Australia. Because Gordon was the proper person to have custody of the child, the judge dismissed the father's application. The judge then varied the custody order to allow to Grodon to move to Australia with the child. The Goertz was still granted generous access to be exercised in Australia only.
[1996] 2 SCR 27
Family Law
PROTECTED GROUPS
Personally sued for negative information?

Defer to HR

Avoid comments:
Employee's attitude
Reason for leaving
Eligibility for rehire
Employment Law Topics
Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate
[1994] 2 SCR 807
Estate Law
is an example of an as it deals with the distribution of property after a testator's death. Though it, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law of "wills variations" and made the relevant decision that a will may be varied under the Will Variations Act where there are
legal or moral obligations to provide maintenance and support for a spouse or child.
Tataryn v. Tataryn Estate
Estate Law case
The husband (the testator) and his wife had been married 43 years and, through their joint efforts, had amassed a home (in the husband's name), a rental property and bank funds. There were two adult sons, J. and E. The husband disliked J and feared that if he left his estate to his wife, she would pass it on to J. By his will, the wife was the beneficiary of a life interest in the home. E. was the trustee and residuary beneficiary taking full title to the home upon the wife’s death. J. received nothing under the will or the trust it created.
The trial judge in Tataryn revoked the bequest of the rental property to E. and directed that J. and E. each receive an immediate gift of $10,000 out of the residue of the estate. The trial judge also directed that when the wife died the residue of the estate, including the home and the rental property, was to be divided one-third to J. and two-thirds to E.
&
3 Rules to prevent
wrongful termination
Walk the talk



Treat employees fairly



Don't fire whistleblowers!
Written, oral and implied contracts...
This case can be found here:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1161/index.do
1. Be consistent
2. Have a legitimate business reason for every decision
3. document, Document, DOCUMENT
4. In doubt? Call HR.
This case involved (matrimonial) property law. It shows the historical tie in which wives could only own property by having it placed in their names or by providing all or part of its purchase price.
Illegal invasion of privacy
respectful
physical harassment
space invaders
&
&
Poor performance
Harassment
Gordon intended to move to Australia to study, prompting Goertz to apply for custody of the child, or to have an order restraining the mother from moving the child from Saskatoon.
Fiduciary duty:
use reasonable care
Confidentiality:
loose lips sink ships
Personal v. Work Life:
undivided loyalty
Gordon v. Goertz showcases how the best interests of the child(ren) are heavily weighed in cases of family law.

Also, it shows how, in family-related "mobility" issues, the Court will try to encourage/ support the continuance of full contact with the child’s access parent, its extended family and its community.
This case can be found here:

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1380/index.do
Presentation by
Melissa A. Maben
References
&
Lawsuit
Promote
for
everyone
Course
outline
value diversity
decision
business reason for
every
SJWC
3.
Employment Law
4
Concepts
embrace culture
Conclusion
Remember 4 key concepts:
Be consistent

Have legitimate business reason for every decision

Document

Call

HR
SJWC policies on Sharepoint (soon WFN)
Management & Business publications
Manager, HR, Peers
Utilize Resources available to you:
As managers, it is your responsibility to

the interests of SJWC, establish and

an equitable working environment
protect
safeguard
for all SJWC employees.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)
Race & color
National origin
language use
Citizenship
Religion
Sex
pregnancy, childbirth
gender identity
gender expression
Sexual Orientation
Marital Status
Disability
Medical condition
Genetic information
Age
Military & Veteran status
Applies to:
hiring
placement
promotion
termination
layoff
recall
transfer
leaves of absence
compensation
training
Hire the best and brightest
Resume sourcing

Behavior-based interview questions

Sensitive questions
Discrimination
Hiring
Wage & Hour Law
Privacy
Unlawful Harassment
Wrongful Termination
Your Rights as a Manager
Exempt vs. Non-Exempt Classifications
Overtime
Reason for invasion
Means reasonably related to end?
Discretion &
Independent Judgement
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Theft
Insubordination
Violence
Not following safety procedures
Use or possession of alcohol/drugs at work
Have a


Fair
Legitimate
business reason for
you do
&
John Guz's employment was terminated as a part of RIF after he spent 22 years with Bechtel, characterized by study raises and promotions.

He sued, claiming he had an implied contract with Bechtel, based on his longevity, promotions, raises and favorable performance reviews.

"...an employee's mere passage of time in the employer's service, even where marked by tangible indicia that the employer approves the employe's work, cannot alone form an implied-in-fact contract that the employee is no longer at will."

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
Written documents
Employee Handbook
Offer Letters
Verbal promises
"You'll get a raise."
"I'll promote you next year."
Implied contracts
Employee longevity with Company
favorable performance reviews.
5 Principles that will help prevent invasion of privacy
John Guz's employment was terminated as a part of RIF after he spent 22 years with Bechtel, characterized by steady raises and promotions.

He sued, claiming he had an implied contract with Bechtel, based on his longevity, promotions, raises and favorable performance reviews.

"...an employee's mere passage of time in the employer's service, even where marked by tangible indicia that the employer approves the employee's work, cannot alone form an implied-in-fact contract that the employee is no longer at will."

Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.
Advice employees in advance about what information is collected, why and how

Guarantee information will not be disseminated to outsiders without employee's consent

Give employees access to records and opportunity to correct inaccuracies

Only collect information that is relevant to the job

Gather information in the least intrusive way possible
Becker, a BMW salesman at Karl Knauz Motors, was terminated after he posted several photos and comments on Facebook regarding incidents that happened at work.

One incident involved an accident with a Land Rover, when a salesperson allowed the 13-year-old son of a customer to sit behind the wheel after a test drive. The boy hit the gas, drove over his parent's foot, over a wall and then into a pond. Becker posted a picture of the Land Rover in the pond and a caption criticizing his co-worker's decision to let the boy sit in the car.

Thereafter Becker filed a claim with the NLRB, claiming that he was discharged for engaging in protected concerted activity because his posts were made in an effort to improve working conditions.

The NLRB held that the posts about the Land Rover incident were not protected concerted activity because they were posted solely by Becker without an discussion or connection to any other employee's terms and conditions of employment.

Becker v. Karl Knauz Motors, Inc., 2012
Quid pro quo
EVERYTHING
At Will Employment
be
defer to
&
HR
events
document
have a
legitimate
business reason for
every
decision
consistent
Your Rights as a Manager
Your right to give instruction
Your right to require excellence
When issues aren't clear cut
Training Objectives
Meal periods
- 1/2 hour per 5 hours except when workday can be completed in 6 hours
Break periods
- One paid 10-minute rest period for each 4 hours worked
or fraction thereof
Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
1.
Performance Reviews
: appraise performance accurately
and based on the job description

2.
Complaints
: conduct fair, thorough and prompt
investigations

3.
Discipline
: counsel and provide opportunity for course
correction

4.
Termination
: tell the truth
4 target areas for treating Employees fairly
What is the "right way" to terminate employees?
What is fair?
What can I expect from my
employees?
Terms & Conditions of Employment
Swinton v. Potomac Corporation
Swinton
was subject to racially offensive "jokes" and slurs by a supervisor on an ongoing basis.
Swinton
's immediate supervisor was witness, took no action and laughed along.
Potomac
knew or should have known of the harassment due to the pervasiveness of the conduct/language and failed to take reasonably prompt corrective action. Despite having a formal internal compliant process and
Swinton
not availing himself, he was awarded $5,600 in back pay, $30,000 for emotional distress and $1,000,000 of punitive damages.
Employment Law
Sanchez,
a male server, was subjected to relentless insults, name-calling and vulgarities because of sex. Male co-workers and a supervisor repeatedly referred to Sanchez as "faggot" and "female whore". Ultimately, the district courts entered a judgement in favor of Azteca because Sanchez failed to utilize preventive or corrective opportunities provided by employer.

Companies can be held liable for sex discrimination when employees face slurs based on gender stereotypes.
Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.
Employers Liable for Inaction by Supervisor
Employers Liable for
Gender Stereotypes
Full transcript