Serving on a jury is one of the most important civic duties that a citizen can fulfill. For employers, however, having employees miss days or weeks at a time to sit on a jury can a mean a lag in productivity. If an essential employee is summoned for service it may be tempting for the employer to persuade him or her to find a way out of participating. As an attorney, I have often heard jurors attempt to skirt their duty by saying, “You Honor, I cannot miss work.”

On Monday, I provided details about the Ehling case wherein an employee had made an inappropriate Facebook post and, unbeknownst to her, had that Facebook post sent to her manager by a Facebook “friend” and coworker.

Inappropriate Facebook posts, pictures and the like have led to many firings in recent years. A large number of employees have become smarter on social media and made a concerted effort to not “friend” a manager or boss. They think that they are keeping their online persona and work reputation separate…but is that really possible when dealing with the Internet?

On Monday, it was discussed that it is typically acceptable to offer different maternity leave benefits for employees at separate employer locations (such as a corporate office versus store locations). Further, it was noted that it is generally acceptable to have varying policies amongst employees, so far as the policies are applied within the parameters of the law (i.e., not discriminatory).

Recently, our firm was asked if it were permissible for a company to have separate maternity policies for a corporate office from that of a store location.  The concern was of course that a claim of discrimination would be made if different policies were used, and it was right for the question to be asked.  However, what may be surprising is that there is no requirement that employees at different company locations all be offered the same benefits. In fact, it is common for employees in a corporate office to receive different employment packages than those at other locations, such as the company’s retail store or restaurant. In fact, an employer does not have to have the same policies for all employees in the same location in many instances. The key is that a policy not have an adverse impact on any protected groups or result in unintentional discrimination.

Contrary to what many employees think, paid time off (“PTO”) is not a protected right. Instead, it is a matter of agreement between an employer and employee. There are times when employees may prefer to take unpaid leave so that they can accrue their PTO, but employers can determine whether this practice is permissible. It is lawful for employers to require that employees exhaust unused PTO time before taking unpaid time away from work.

On Monday, we examined the basic concept of employer-mandated flu vaccinations.  Generally speaking, employers may require at-will employees to get a flu shot and may terminate an employee based upon a refusal. The right to terminate, however, is not without limitation,  and a recent case on this issue instructs that certain protected rights and classifications likely must be considered prior to termination.

As summer draws to an end, flu season is lurking right around the corner. Last year’s flu season was especially hard-hitting. Many employers have taken proactive steps in recent years to protect their workforce by offering free flu vaccines or encouraging employees to get one on their own. But, can employers go one step further and require their at-will employees to receive flu shots?

As an employer, one of the most difficult parts of the job can be letting an employee go or eliminating their position. When the departure is an amicable one, many employers choose to provide a severance package. In some cases, an employment contract or union agreement may require severance pay no matter how the relationship ends.

GINA is not a who, but rather a what. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) was passed by Congress in 2008. GINA makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate against employees or applicants on the basis of genetic information. Employers cannot lawfully inquire about (1) an individual’s genetic tests; (2) the genetic tests of an individual’s family members; or, (3) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of such an individual.