The comments on a recent post regarding hiring sex offenders seem to be grounded in a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an attorney to his or her client.
The court made a clear distinction between general, gender-nonspecific swear words as compared to gender-specific epithets.
Given the current immigration policies, HR pros need a way to prepare so they can recruit the talent they need.
Legally speaking, much of this debate regarding employing a sex offender depends on the state in which you are operating.
Says an employee, ‘ … if I don’t send him a picture or otherwise prove that I used the bathroom, I will lose 15 minutes of paid time. What recourse do I have?’
If you learn that one of your employees is having or has had an abortion, do yourself a favor and just let her be.
The question then becomes, is Lamps Plus v. Varela a good result for employers?
I cannot overstate enough the importance of these LGBTQ discrimination cases to the future of American civil rights.
The law protects an employee from discrimination and retaliation but it does not protect the employee’s right to express bigoted views.
As private as a bathroom might feel, just assume that everything said in a public bathroom is not private.