Unemployment Benefits Refresher, Part II

 A common administrative headache for employers is dealing with terminated employees who go on to seek unemployment benefits. While an employer has the right to challenge the award of unemployment benefits, choosing to do so requires careful consideration.  The process can be time-consuming and may require a commitment of more resources than one would like.  Additionally, challenging an award of unemployment benefits may serve to push a former employee into litigation that he or she may not have pursued otherwise.  That being said, if an employer has good documentation regarding a termination and clear, uniformly enforced employee policies, challenging a claim for unemployment benefits can be successful.

Much of the anxiety that a Department of Labor (“DOL”) Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) investigation causes is due to the mystery of the investigative process. In this case, what you don’t know can hurt you. If an employer is unaware of the process or its demands, too much or too little information may be handed over – resulting in negative consequences. Let’s take a look at how the investigation will be conducted once the DOL investigator steps inside the workplace.

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) conducts workplace inspections for potential violations of wage and hour laws. Employers often place frantic telephone calls to their lawyer when an investigator from the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) knocks on their door for good reason: a DOL investigation should be  taken seriously. Any last-minute attempt to pass muster typically falls short, and leaves an employer in violation of wage and hour laws which may subject them to hefty fines. A violation can result in wage restitution, interest, and liquidated damages.  Preparedness is key, and an employer’s institution of the following five guidelines can drastically improve their position should the DOL initiate an investigation.

In recent years, policy makers in numerous states have considered banning welfare, unemployment benefits or workers’ compensation to employees or ex-employees who test positive for drug use. Proponents say that public monies should not be given to those who engage in illicit drug use and likely misuse payments on their addiction. Opponents say that these policies target the already-vulnerable who may be trying to get back on their feet and argue that drug testing procedures can be just as costly as the doled-out payments. The Kentucky legislature may take up the issue in 2014, as it has already showed interest in such measures during past sessions.

As most employees and employers are aware, a standard employment application normally includes a box or line item for the applicant to document whether he/she has ever been convicted of a crime. In the employment relations realm, however, there exists a growing initiative to “ban-the-box” – meaning that job applications no longer ask about one’s criminal history.

On Monday we discussed the basic framework for providing employees with days off during recognized religious holidays.  A related issue commonly presented during the holiday season is whether employees must be paid for their time off.

The holidays are a joyous time of year, but many employers face the season with a certain sense of trepidation as their employees inevitably request time off work.  As the holiday season kicks into full gear, now is a good time for employers to refresh themselves on basic guidelines for granting and denying employees’ vacation requests.

When Miami Dolphins player Jonathan Martin made allegations that veteran teammate Richie Incognito had bullied and hazed him so badly that he had no choice but to leave the team, the NFL was collectively stunned. Bullying in professional football? Can such a thing exist?

Wage garnishment is a legal means of collecting an unpaid debt through a direct payroll deduction. In most cases, a creditor must file a lawsuit and obtain a judgment against the debtor before a garnishment can be instituted (there are, however, a few exceptions to this general rule).