Archive for February, 2010
February 26th, 2010
Sexual harassment is certainly a problem in the workplace and needs to be addressed immediately and correctly when a claim is made. Although there are laws already on the books, California decided to enact another law on sexual harassment called AB1825. This only frustrates me since companies already have to deal with existing laws not only on sexual harassment, but numerous others. Why reinvent the wheel?
I can speak from experience when I tell you that I dealt with one of the most complex sexual harassment claims ever when I was a Human Resources Director at a California hotel. This situation took place long before AB1825 was ever even thought about, and the new law would not have changed anything about what took place. The sexual harassment policies that were a part of our organization and the training I conducted with our supervisors and regular staff was outstanding and more than complied with the laws on the books at the time.
I was stunned one day when a female employee walked into my office and stated that she had been raped two days ago by her supervisor. My mouth dropped open in disbelief but I was able to gain my composure enough to ask her if she would like to have a female supervisor present. She seemed relieved and agreed she would like them there while I questioned her. Because it had been a supervisor that was involved in this case, the new law AB1825 would not have mattered at all.
The new law AB1825 is directed at supervisors being educated about sexual harassment and how to prevent it. When it came to the employee claiming she had been sexually harassed by her supervisor the law would not have mattered. Sexual harassment claims can get very complex depending on the situation and in this case it was extremely complex so getting at the truth was very important. People’s careers and emotions were at stake.
Getting at the truth anytime a charge of sexual harassment is made is a very important part of my job as Manager. As an example if we handle the charge incorrectly and charge someone with sexual harassment that didn’t really do anything wrong they may lose their family over it. On the other hand if we take it too lightly and do nothing the emotional state of the person being violated could have an impact on them for the rest of their lives. Getting at the truth is critical and sometimes very difficult. The new law really does nothing to address that anymore than the other ones that are already on the books
I am a very strong advocate for protecting everyone’s rights within the workplace. A workplace should be somewhere that employees can feel safe to do their jobs, free from harassment or discrimination. As far as I am concerned AB1825 only brings more attention to sexual harassment, which I guess isn’t a bad thing. But I would argue that California should have placed more attention on the laws that are already on the books, rather than create new ones that only cloud the issue more.
Looking to find the best information on California’s New AB1825 Sexual Harassment Law, then visit www.leadership-skills-for-life.com to find the best advice on California’s New AB1825 Sexual Harassment Law for you.
February 26th, 2010
By Jane Frost
A federal employee may find himself in quandary after having an accident that renders him disabled. His only option will be to seek disability retirement and wait for the benefits. That definitely means leaving his job to live on the benefits alone or look for another job that can still accept him in his condition.
However, applying for those benefits only seems easy on paper. In fact, its approval is not always smooth and fast. Oftentimes, employees seeking the release of their benefits wait too long. That is if they are lucky enough to have their application approved. Because of this, they have to go to a federal employee law firm for help.
The federal employee law firm will help the aggrieved in processing his application and will see to it that it is approved. For many employees, this may be heavy on the financial side. However, unless they can live without their benefits, having lawyers to ensure that these are released is worth it.
It is true that disability retirement benefits are recognized as privileges and rights afforded to disabled federal employees. Still, for one reason or another, cases of these being delayed or denied do occur. Without an able lawyer to rely on, the poor former employee may just let these rights be violated by those who process his papers.
For the disabled former employee, knowing what his rights and privileges are will enable him to pursue his benefits through legal action. A federal employee law firm will provide him the education he will need on the laws and policies that govern retirement benefits resulting from disability. A lawyer will be assigned to him for this.
The aggrieved former employee should not wait too long before having a lawyer to help him in pursuing his disability retirement benefits. He only has a year since his separation to process this. If he processes it later than the allowed timeframe, he may no longer be able to get those benefits.
The value of disability retirement benefits may be small compared to the salary he once received. Relying on it alone is certainly not financially viable. To earn more, he may have to seek employment too. For as long as his salary is not too big, the law allows him to work in a job while receiving the benefits accorded to him.
However, counting the chicks before the eggs hatch can be frustrating. Therefore, instead of expecting the best out of his retirement benefits, he may as well approach a federal employee law firm as soon as he is separated. Starting early the process of acquiring those benefits is advantageous. It minimizes the possibility of denial or delay.
Jane Frost helps people that are injured and looking to get disability retirement. He also has extensive experience dealing with federal employee law firms.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jane_Frost
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Legal-Circus-in-Attaining-Disability-Retirement-Benefits&id=3814582
February 25th, 2010The California Supreme Court has consistently supported summary judgment against plaintiffs in sexual harassment cases where the plaintiff has not made out a case that is sufficient under the legal definitions of “severe” or “pervasive”. The California Supreme Court says “severe” means an offensive touching involving physical violence or a threat thereof. For sexual harassment to qualify as “pervasive,” there must be repeated conduct over a period of time that alters the conditions of employment and creates a work environment that qualifies as hostile or abusive to employees because of their sex.
A separate theory for liability for sexual harassment is quid pro quo harassment, where a term of employment is conditioned upon submission to unwelcome sexual advances.
The cases reveal that plaintiffs typically have the most difficulty overcoming summary judgment when their claims are based on pervasive sexual harassment. In contrast, a plaintiff who claims quid pro quo harassment simply has to declare under penalty of perjury that, for example, a supervisor made unwelcome demands for sexual favors as a condition of employment or continuing employment and/or as a condition of avoiding some type of adverse employment action.
Plaintiffs sometimes have difficulty in overcoming summary judgment based on a claim of “severe” harassment based on a single event. As noted above, the plaintiff must declare that there was physical violence or a threat thereof based on sex. Successful allegations are usually supported by declarations that there was either unwanted sexual contact or unwanted groping of a sexual part.
The challenge is greater for a plaintiff who alleges a threat of physical violence or offensive touching to a sexual part, because to be actionable, the objectionable behavior must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, which means that not only must the plaintiff perceive the threat as one of physical violence or sexual violation, but also a reasonable person, considering all the circumstances, would agree with the plaintiff’s perception of the threat.
For more information about Sexual Harassment Law in California, please visit our website at http://www.sexualharasslaw.com/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Timothy_Broderick
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-to-Avoid-Summary-Judgment-in-Sexual-Harassment-Cases&id=3807626
