Compliance Partner
Dogs, bears and horseplay: Strange but true workers’ comp cases
A dog, a bear and a canoe trip gone awry might sound like the components of a comedy movie, but they’re actually the basis for separate, unusual and real workers’ compensation claims.
“Most employers take steps to prevent workplace injuries, but they can’t anticipate every situation that employees may get themselves into,” says Rebecca Bentz, an editor and author who specializes in corporate human resources issues for compliance resource firm J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. “And some of those situations are bizarre, to say the least.”
Workers’ compensation laws differ from state to state, but there seems to be no limit to the odd ways that workers claim eligibility (and, for some, become eligible) for this benefit. Here are three cases that Bentz found intriguing:
A dog’s tale
A family pet has been implicated in an Oregon woman’s workers’ comp claim. The employee, who regularly worked out of her home, tripped over her dog while walking to the garage to replace fabric samples for work that were stored in her van. She ended up breaking a bone in her wrist.
The state Workers’ Compensation Board initially denied the employee benefits because she was at home, a location outside of her employer’s control. The Oregon Court of Appeals, however, reversed the board’s decision, asserting that her home was, at times, her work environment. At the time she was injured, in fact, she was walking to her garage for the work-related task of getting fabric samples.
“Employees who regularly work from home may be entitled to workers’ comp benefits if their injuries arose out of actions or duties reasonably related to their employment, even if the risks – or dogs – that led to the injury were outside the employer’s control,” Bentz says.
She suggests that employers train employees who work from home on injury prevention. A safety check is another good idea, as is a policy requiring employees to report injuries in a timely manner, as this may help prevent fraudulent claims.
Canoe chaos
An equally odd claim began with a group of employees who had finished a canoe trip celebrating the release of a new product. A number of them began to splash each other and tip over co-workers’ canoes.
Two co-workers noticed an employee standing on the sidelines and tried to pull him into the river. When their efforts failed, one of the men grabbed the employee and slammed him to the ground. This caused a neck injury.
The Ohio Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision that the employee was entitled to workers’ compensation benefits for injuries suffered during the mandatory team-building event.
“Horseplay doesn’t necessarily negate a workers’ comp claim,” Bentz says. “This case illustrates why it is so important to prohibit such activities in the workplace. Enforce this rule with disciplinary measures, and monitor manager and supervisor support of this policy.”
She adds that, in this case, the injured employee and the co-worker who threw him to the ground were both managers.
Up in smoke
An outdoor adventure of a different sort brought about a strange claim in Montana. Earlier this year, the state’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that determined a man mauled by grizzly bears at a tourist park was eligible to receive workers’ compensation benefits, despite the fact that he smoked marijuana before feeding the animals.
The employer argued that the injured man was not an employee, but a volunteer. The employer also contended that because the man had smoked marijuana on the day of the attack, he was not eligible for benefits.
The Workers’ Compensation Court of Montana found that the injured man was not a volunteer, since he received money in return for completing tasks at the employer’s command. The Supreme Court affirmed this, as well as the lower court’s assertion that the use of marijuana was not the major contributing cause of the man’s injuries.
“When it comes to attacking humans, grizzlies are equal opportunity maulers, attacking without regard to race, creed, ethnicity or marijuana usage,” Judge James Jeremiah Shea noted in his decision.
The case offers a few lessons, Bentz notes. First, employers should be sure to accurately classify employees.
“In most states, independent contractors and volunteers are ineligible for workers’ comp benefits, but employers must be sure that these individuals are not actually employees,” she says.
In addition, employers should take steps to prevent alcohol and illicit drug use in the workplace.
“In many cases, a drug-free workplace policy can cut down on injuries,” Bentz says. “Some states even offer discounts on workers’ compensation premiums for employers who institute such policies.”
About the Author
Rebecca Bentz is tracking more intriguing workers’ compensation cases for Prospera, an online human resources management service from J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. J. J. Keller, headquartered in Neenah, Wis., offers a diverse line of products and services to address the broad range of responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. To learn more, visit www.jjkeller.com and www.prospera.com.
Posted 5/10/2012
OSHA Announces the “Top Ten” Most Frequently Cited Standards
Every year OSHA publishes data on its most frequently cited standards, along with penalty amounts. Leading the way for fiscal year 2011 (October 2010 through September 2011) are citations for fall protection in construction and hazard communication in general industry.
OSHA’s Top 10 most frequently cited standards for FY 2011:
- Duty to have fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
- Scaffolds, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
- Hazard communication standard, general industry (29 CFR 1910.1200)
- Respiratory protection, general industry (29 CFR 1910.134)
- Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
- Electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)
- Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)
- Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178) \
- Electrical systems design, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)
- Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)
Current Top 10 highest penalty standards:
- Duty to have fall protection, construction (29 CFR 1926.501)
- Scaffolds, general requirements, construction (29 CFR 1926.451)
- Control of hazardous energy (lockout/tagout), general industry (29 CFR 1910.147)
- Machines, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.212)
- Ladders, construction (29 CFR 1926.1053)
- Excavations, requirements for protective systems, construction (29 CFR 1926.652)
- Powered industrial trucks, general industry (29 CFR 1910.178)
- General duty clause (Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act)
- Electrical, wiring methods, components and equipment, general industry (29 CFR 1910.305)
- Electrical systems design, general requirements, general industry (29 CFR 1910.303)
Stay off the list
Knowing which standards OSHA pays the most attention to will help you prepare for your next OSHA inspection. Use KOL to help you stay up-to-date on standards that apply to general industry and construction such as OSHA’s fall protection standards, HAZCOM standard, respiratory protection standards, and electrical standards.
In addition, find OSHA guidance documents that help you comply with the safety standards. These guidance documents, such as compliance guides, letters of interpretation, best practices guides, and fact sheets, provide all the information you need to keep your employees safe and stay off of OSHA’s Top Ten List!
Posted 4/19/2012
The Power of the Pack: What Workplace Leaders Can Learn From an Iditarod Champion
by Katie Loehrke, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
At age 18, Dallas Seavey was the youngest musher to finish what has been called the last great race on earth – the grueling, 1,049-mile Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race. Now 25, Seavey has many more impressive finishes under his belt. In 2011, he became the youngest winner of the Yukon Quest International Sled Dog Race. On Tuesday night, March 13, he became the youngest winner of the Iditarod, winning the 2012 race from Anchorage to Nome, Alaska, in 9 days, 4 hours, 29 minutes.
As a musher, Seavey regularly faces sub-zero temperatures and gale-force winds. He’s experienced frostbite and conditions that have nearly taken his life. Though few people will ever face the extreme conditions for which Seavey and his dogs train, almost any workplace and any manager can learn a thing or two from the way he leads his team.
Lesson 1: Know the team’s needs
Seavey’s training methods and race strategies hinge on an understanding of the requirements of his team. Aside from basic needs like food and rest, he notes that “dogs, like people, want to fit in.” As pack animals, they are extremely comfortable being part of a group. Accordingly, one of the scariest things for a pack animal is the idea of not being able to keep up with the team. For this reason, Seavey has to be careful to manage his team in a way that utilizes all of the dogs and allows them to keep up in the roles that they have been given.
Lesson 2: Provide leadership
As pack animals, dogs are most comfortable following one leader. Seavey notes that “the dogs don’t care who is in charge, as long as somebody is.” As long as he provides the leadership that the team needs, the dogs won’t look to dominate. In fact, he points out that the term “lead dog” may be a misnomer. Contrary to popular belief, lead dogs don’t have authority, nor do they want authority beyond what the musher gives them. Lead dogs are in the position they’re in precisely because they are willing to follow the commands given by the musher, even when faced with the resistance of the rest of the team.
Lesson 3: Inspire confidence, trust
Seavey acknowledges that his leadership must be absolute and that his dogs must be able to trust him 100 percent. In fact, successful training is based on creating trust between dogs and musher; that can only be gained through experience. Seavey indicates that after enough time seeing that they can trust him in any known situation, the dogs will begin to inherently believe that they also can fully trust him in unknown situations.
While fostering such trust can take years, it’s this kind of confidence in the leader that enables Seavey’s sled dog team to trek more than 100 miles per day for 10 to 12 hours at a time during a race. The dogs not only trust that he won’t steer them astray, but that he knows their limits and won’t push them too far.
Problems with the team are relatively rare, but Seavey states that most issues hinge on trust. A dog that hesitates before following directions is usually exhibiting early signs of doubt, he says. This is most common in young dogs without the experience required to trust the musher implicitly.
Lesson 4: Team focus, team credit
When asked to summarize his history-making 2012 Iditarod performance, Seavey refuses to credit himself or any of his hard work. Instead, he credits the team and its members. “I am totally amazed and impressed with these dogs. If you have a strong team, it’s amazing how much power you have to draw on.”
Though already an accomplished musher and leader at age 25, Seavey’s focus never wavers from the team mentality. With a solid understanding of the power of the pack, he appears poised to take on the next great challenge.
Apply these pack principles at work to create a winning team of your own.
About the Author:
Katie Loehrke is an associate editor at J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc., (http://www.jjkeller.com/) a compliance resource firm which offers products and services to address the responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. She is the editor of J. J. Keller’s SUPER adVISOR newsletter on employee management issues, and writes content for the Prospera online HR management tool (http://www.prospera.com/).
Posted 3/19/2012
A Case (Make That Two) For Returning Employee Phone Calls
by Katie Loehrke, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
Phone tag can be an annoying game. Perhaps worse, however, is when the person you’re trying to reach won’t return your calls or emails at all. You might feel ignored, snubbed, or even that you are being punished. If you are an employee trying to communicate with your employer or manager, an unreturned phone call might even give you cause to charge that you are being discriminated against. For two employers, this was the unfortunate situation in the cases that follow.
FMLA stalemate
In one recent case, an employee out on leave didn’t return to work on the date she was expected, which was also the date her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was exhausted. As a result, she was terminated.
However, the employee claimed that she had called her supervisor with updates about her leave, but her calls were never returned. The employee even had requested a brief extension of leave, providing a certification that cleared her to return to work just a few days later than expected. Again, the employee claimed that she received no response from her supervisor.
The employee filed suit, alleging she was retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. The court indicated that, if the supervisor truly failed to return the employee’s calls, this could prove that the supervisor had “an antagonistic attitude toward the employee” prompted by the FMLA leave. As a result, the case was allowed to continue.
Religious accommodation denied?
Similar problems can arise through other means of communication. In the following situation, an unreturned email was to blame for an employer finding itself in court.
A sales manager in Chicago recently ran into some workplace trouble involving his religion. An evangelical Christian, the manager was very open about his faith in the workplace, and one of his employees claimed that he went too far by quoting scripture. The employee claimed that the manager discriminated against her and told her that the Bible says a “slave should be obedient to his master,” insinuating that she should be obedient to him.
The company investigated the employee’s claim and concluded that the manager generally treated employees fairly. However, they asked that the manager stop discussing religion with his employees, fearing that allowing him to continue could create a hostile work environment.
After some time had passed, the manager sent an email to his supervisor and to human resources, asking for clarification on the restriction. He indicated that his faith required him to answer any religious questions he was asked. He received no answer to this email.
Months down the road, after being demoted for performance reasons, the manager quit. Not long thereafter, he sued his employer for religious discrimination, failure to accommodate his religious beliefs, hostile work environment, and emotional distress.
The court threw out all of his claims but one: failure to accommodate. The court bought the employee’s argument that his unanswered email could be seen as a request for a religious accommodation.
Lessons learned
In both of these cases, it is not certain how the employers will fare at trial, but either situation may have been prevented had communication been better. Especially in the FMLA case, where it seems that only the manager was aware of the situation as it unfolded, training for managers cannot be stressed enough. They must understand their responsibilities to communicate with employees who take leave or request accommodations.
About the Author:
Katie Loehrke is an associate editor of human resources at J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. She is the editor of J. J. Keller’s Employment Law Today newsletter as well as The SUPER adVISOR newsletter.
J. J. Keller, headquartered in Neenah, Wis., offers a diverse line of products and services to address the broad range of responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. To learn more, visit http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.prospera.com/.
Posted 2/10/2012
Workers’ Comp Risks For Employers with At-Home Workers
by Katie Loehrke, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
A 2011 Survey on Workplace Flexibility by WorldatWork found that nearly 20 percent of employees work from home or work remotely. Allowing employees to work remotely does have benefits, for both the employer and the employee. However, that’s not to say it doesn’t come with risks and drawbacks. A few such risks have recently been in the news — and in the courts.
In one case, a 25-year employee of a communications company worked at home three days a week and out of the office two days a week. Her job involved long hours sitting at a desk. When the employee died of a blood clot and a pulmonary embolism caused (at least in part) by sitting for long periods of time, a New Jersey appellate court ruled that the extended periods of sitting while on the job contributed to her death. As a result, the court determined that the employee’s spouse was eligible for workers’ compensation dependency benefits (Renner v. AT&T).
In another case, a woman worked out of her home selling window treatments and bedding for her employer. One day, when going to her garage to retrieve sample books, she tripped over her dog and fractured her wrist. While an Oregon Workers’ Compensation Board denied workers’ compensation benefits, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned that ruling, indicating that since the employee’s home was her work environment, the injury arose from her employment. The court reasoned that the employee "was where she was, doing what she was, because of the requirements of her employment" (Sandberg v. JC Penney).
Cases like these are still relatively new to the courts, and it remains to be seen whether future rulings regarding workers’ comp and at-home workers will continue to favor employees. What can be learned, however, is that remote workers can’t be out of sight and out of mind. When employees are allowed (or required, as was the situation in the second case mentioned above) to work from home, it’s a good idea to consider safety and ergonomics in an employee’s home office as you would in a company office and to document such efforts.
Communication with remote workers also must be a priority. If employees are in jobs where they sit for long periods of time, they should be reminded of proper ergonomics and also of the importance of getting up regularly to stretch and move around. As the first case illustrates, communicating such a message is just as important for remote workers as it is for workers that are on-site.
About the Author:
Katie Loehrke is an associate editor of human resources at J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. She is the editor of J. J. Keller’s Employment Law Today newsletter as well as The SUPER adVISOR newsletter.
J. J. Keller, headquartered in Neenah, Wis., offers a diverse line of products and services to address the broad range of responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. To learn more, visit http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.prospera.com/.
Posted 1/12/2012
The Importance of the ADA’s Interactive Process
by Darlene Clabault, J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc.
As an employer, when you learn of the need for an accommodation, you are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to engage in what is known as the “interactive process.” This is a formal way of saying that you and the employee or applicant requesting an accommodation should talk about the request or need, especially where the need for an accommodation might not be obvious. The interactive process helps determine whether and what type of accommodation would be effective.
Generally, an individual must inform you that he or she needs a reasonable accommodation because of a disability. As part of this interactive process, it is important that an individual tell you how limitations from a disability affect the ability to perform a job or to participate fully in the benefits and privileges of employment. If the individual knows what type of reasonable accommodation would be helpful, he or she should tell you. You may suggest alternative accommodations, and the individual should consider whether they would be effective. You do not have to provide a specific accommodation requested; but if you do not, you must offer an effective alternative (barring undue hardship).
The exact nature of the dialogue during the interactive process will vary. In many instances, both the disability and the type of accommodation required will be obvious, and thus, there may be little or no need to engage in a lengthy discussion. In other situations, you may need to ask questions concerning the nature of the disability and the individual's functional limitations in order to identify an effective accommodation. While the individual with a disability does not have to be able to specify the precise accommodation, he or she does need to describe the problems posed by the workplace barrier. Additionally, suggestions from the individual with a disability may assist you in determining the type of reasonable accommodation to provide. Where neither the individual nor you are familiar with possible accommodations, there are resources to help identify reasonable accommodations once the specific limitations and workplace barriers have been ascertained. One such source is the Job Accommodation Network (askjan.org).
This type of conversation helps where there may be a question regarding whether an employee’s disability can be reasonably accommodated and what type of accommodation might best help the individual apply for a job or perform the essential functions of a job. Questions you may want to consider include the following:
- What limitations is the employee experiencing?
- How do these limitations affect the employee and the employee’s job performance?
- What specific job tasks are problematic as a result of these limitations?
- What accommodations are available to reduce or eliminate these problems?
- Are all possible resources being used to determine possible accommodations?
- Has the employee been consulted regarding possible accommodations?
If the need for an accommodation is not obvious, you may ask for documentation describing the individual’s disability and why a requested accommodation is needed. You may want to consider the following:
- Specify what types of information you are seeking about the disability and needed accommodation. Focus on the job performance; you don’t need an entire medical history.
- Explain what you will need to know (e.g., the type of impairment and how it limits a major life activity like sitting, standing, performing manual tasks or sleeping).
- Request information about how an accommodation would enable the employee to perform job-related tasks.
- Consider providing the employee’s health care professional with a description of the job’s essential functions to increase the likelihood that you will get accurate and complete information upon initial request.
The interactive process is a major step toward providing an accommodation to allow an employee to perform the job or to allow an applicant to engage in the application process. Courts have ruled against employers who failed to engage in this process.
About the author:
Darlene Clabault is a senior editor of human resources at J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. She researches and creates content on a number of HR topics, such as FMLA, ADA, HIPAA, and the ACA. She also tracks employment-related legislation through her role as an editor and as the Fox Valley SHRM VP Legislative Representative. She is the editor of three HR manuals published by J. J. Keller – FMLA Revealed: Understanding Leave Requirements, Americans with Disabilities Compliance, and HIPAA Compliance.
J. J. Keller, headquartered in Neenah, Wis., offers a diverse line of products and services to address the broad range of responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. To learn more, visit http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.prospera.com/.
Posted 12/15/2011
New Guidance on Employee Use Of Social Media
Over the past year, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been actively involved in an ongoing conversation about the extent to which employees can use social media to discuss their employers. Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) applies to both union and non-union environments and gives employees the right to discuss the terms and conditions of employment with co-workers and others. The NLRB says that this includes the right to discuss such terms and conditions on social media sites.
Employers may face situations in which employees who publicly criticize the organization will be exercising their Section 7 rights and cannot be disciplined or retaliated against because of such criticism. Still, the fact that some employee behavior is protected doesn’t mean that any derogatory posting has to be allowed.
Protected Posts Must Be “Concerted Activity”
Most of the cases that make headlines involve situations in which the employer violated an employee’s NLRA rights. However, recent guidance from the NLRB includes a discussion of cases in which employees were not protected under the NLRA because their actions did not qualify as “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”
In order to be engaged in protected “concerted activity,” employees must discuss the terms and conditions of their employment with others. An individual must act with or on the authority of other employees.
In one case, a bartender was fired for a Facebook post that insulted his employer’s customers. In the post, which the employee made in reply to a relative’s inquiry about his night at work, the employee also complained that he hadn’t had a raise in five years and that he was doing the work of the employer’s waitresses, without the tips.
While the employee did discuss terms and conditions of his employment (his complaints regarding the tipping policy and his lack of a raise), he did not do so with co-workers, and no co-workers responded to his post. Because the employee’s actions did not qualify as “concerted activity,” the NLRB found the employer’s decision to terminate acceptable.
In another case, a newspaper reporter used his Twitter account (which identified him as a newspaper employee) to criticize the employer’s copy editors. In response, the employer instructed the individual to refrain from airing his grievances or commenting about the newspaper in any public forum. While the employee did not tweet further about the newspaper, he did post inappropriate tweets relating to homicides in the city as well as several containing sexual content. Later, he posted a tweet criticizing a local television station, though he later apologized to the station via email for his comment.
Eventually, the employee was terminated for disregarding instructions to refrain from making derogatory comments that could damage the newspaper’s reputation. In this case, the NLRB also found the employer’s decision to terminate acceptable, because the employee’s conduct did not relate to the terms and conditions of his employment or seek to involve other employees in issues related to employment.
These examples should help employers understand that there are situations in which employees may be disciplined for disparaging remarks made on social media sites. However, be aware that what begins as an individual gripe could turn into protected concerted activity if the complaining employee’s co-workers join in on the conversation. For instance, if (in the case above involving the bartender) other employees had joined in and complained about employment conditions, the NLRB may not have found the employer’s decision to terminate acceptable.
About the author:
Katie Loehrke is an associate editor of human resources at J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. She is the editor of J. J. Keller’s Employment Law Today newsletter as well as The SUPER adVISOR newsletter.
J. J. Keller, headquartered in Neenah, Wis., offers a diverse line of products and services to address the broad range of responsibilities held by human resources and corporate professionals. To learn more, visit http://www.jjkeller.com/ and http://www.prospera.com/.
Posted 11/03/2011
Posting Requirements Apply to Applicants
Various federal employment laws require employers to post notices in conspicuous places where the intended audience can easily see them. For some of these laws, the intended audience includes applicants as well as employees. The posters that applicants must see include the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), and E-Verify. Generally, the posters are a summary of the rights of both applicants and employees.
Family and Medical Leave Act
Covered employers — private-sector employers with 50 or more employees and all public employers —must post the FMLA notice. The Department of Labor develops the poster explaining that eligible employees of covered employers may take up to 12 workweeks of job-protected leave during a 12-month period for their own serious health condition, for an immediate family member’s serious health condition, or for a qualifying exigency. Such employees may take up to 26 workweeks of FMLA leave to care for a covered servicemember. It also tells employees how to file a complaint if they believe their rights under the Act are violated. All covered employers must display the poster at each business unit in conspicuous places where applicants and employees can see it. The employer must post the notice even if it has no eligible employees. Employers can post the notice electronically; however, the text must be large enough for readability. Also, employers need to provide the poster in a language in which their employees are literate.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Employers with 15 or more employees as well as those with federal contracts or subcontracts that exceed $10,000, or that will (or can reasonably be expected to) exceed more than $10,000 in any 12-month period must post the EEO poster “Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law”. The notice states that discrimination involving race, color, gender, national origin, religion, age, equal pay, disability, and genetic information (the Genetics Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Title II prohibits employers from collecting genetic information to use in making employment decisions) is prohibited with regard to hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment. The poster provides the procedures for filing complaints of violations with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Employers must display the notice in a prominent location available to applicants and employees. Federal contractors and subcontractors with collective bargaining agreements must also post the notice where labor union representatives can readily see it. Employers are not required to post the notice in languages other than English.
Employee Polygraph Protection Act
All employers except for federal, state, and local governments must post the EPPA poster. Employers must post the notice in conspicuous places in every establishment where applicants and employees can easily see it. The Secretary of Labor governs the poster indicating that covered employers are prohibited from using lie detector tests, either for pre-employment screening or during the course of employment, with certain exemptions. The Act permits employers to administer polygraph tests to certain job applicants of security service firms (armored car, alarm, and guard) and of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, and dispensers. The Act also permits polygraph testing of certain employees of private firms whose employers reasonably suspect of involvement in a workplace incident (e.g., theft, embezzlement) that resulted in an economic loss or injury to the employer. Where the Act permits polygraph examinations, employers are subject to strict standards concerning conducting the tests, including the pre-test, test, and post-test phases of the examination. Employers may not require or request any employee or job applicant to take a lie detector test, or discharge, discipline, or discriminate against an employee or job applicant for refusing to take a test or for exercising other rights under the Act. Posting of the EPPA poster in alternate languages is optional.
E-Verify
Employers who have federal contracts or subcontracts that contain the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) E-Verify clause, employers in certain states, and employers who chose to use E-Verify, must post the E-Verify notices at each establishment in conspicuous places where applicants and employees can see it. Employers are to post both the English and Spanish Notice of E-Verify Participation and the Right to Work posters. E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows an employer, using information reported on an employee's Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9, to determine the eligibility of that employee to work in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security in partnership with the Social Security Administration operates the E-Verify system.
Properly displaying all the above notices is legally required and communicates to applicants and employees their rights under the various laws. Failure to post as required can result in penalties.
|
|
|
|