When bad boss behavior occurs, it generally happens in an atmosphere in which the law is ignored, company policy is ignored and the line separating good business practices from boorish conduct—and often unlawful conduct—is crossed. A dose of stupidity, mixed with a larger dose of arrogance—that’s the formula for winning an Awful Award.
Based on his 30 years in practice, attorney Alan L. Rupe says there are three behaviors common to plaintiffs in trumped-up employment lawsuits: They’re passive-aggressive; they exaggerate or lie; or they refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own poor performance. Those three behaviors cause trouble in the workplace, too. Here’s some practical HR advice on weeding them out before they become plaintiffs.
Employees trained at PU invariably dodge their responsibility for prompt reporting of harassment by framing their lack of understanding of the policy in such a way that their failure to complain somehow becomes reasonable. But here’s a holiday gift from columnist Alan Rupe: a surefire way to defeat them.
In the wake of the $11.6 million jury award in the sexual harassment case against Madison Square Garden executives and Knicks Coach Isiah Thomas, what stood out to me was the fact that the defendants went way past just being pinheaded.
Employers, general counsels and HR professionals have become resourceful in developing ways to reduce or avoid employee claims and the subsequent expenses in employment law actions. Given the current Supreme Court’s willingness to apply the plain meaning of employment statutes, it may also be willing to give business a very powerful weapon in cost control—the recovery of attorneys’ fees from a losing employee/plaintiff.
Don’t say no too quickly. The same questions required to weed out mentally disturbed gun purchasers cannot be asked of a person applying for a job operating a rivet gun or driving schoolchildren on a bus without violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Human thinking comes from one of two molds: "inductive" thinking or "deductive" thinking. But most folks are deductive thinkers. These people start off with a conclusion they believe in, and then sort out the evidence to support that conclusion.