No one likes jury duty, it takes time out of our already hectic lives and creates a mess of legal issues that get worse the longer your must serve. Employers must be diligent in how they react or risk facing costly lawsuits on a variety of issues. A federal court recently took up this issue in Madison v. District of Columbia.
In this case, a contract employee for the District of Columbia State Education Office(SEO) on a 13-month contract was called for jury duty toward the end of her employment. Up to that point she had received positive reviews and was expecting to have her contract renewed. Upon being called to jury duty for five-months, her boss split the workload up between several other workers. Working after hours and on Saturdays, the employee in question tried to take care of as much work as possible. After the jury duty was over, the employee was informed her contract would not be renewed.
In a write-up provided by hr.blr.com, The Court Said: There were two questions before the court: one, whether SEO refused to extend Cathy’s employment because of her 5-month jury service, and two, whether her status as a contract employee took her outside the protections of the Act.
On the first issue, Dr. Snopes(the Boss) had testified that Cathy’s job performance wasn’t very good, but the court found her testimony implausible because of the positive performance reviews. Snopes also said that Cathy’s jury duty had no bearing on the decision not to renew her contract, but the court found Cathy’s testimony more credible and found that she had been terminated because of her jury duty.
On the second issue, the court said nothing in the Act supported SEO’s argument that employees with non-permanent employment arrangements didn’t qualify for its protections. The court ordered SEO to reinstate Cathy, pay her back wages, restore her benefits, pay Cathy’s attorney’s fees and court costs, along with a $5,000 fine.
To help you as an employer out with this sensitive issue, HRSentry is providing a sample policy taken directly from our sample employee handbook. This policy addresses federal regulations, some states have additional requirements that can be accessed within our HR Made Simple libraries.
Sample jury duty policy:
XXX Company encourages you to fulfill your civic responsibilities by serving jury duty if you get a summons. You may request unpaid jury duty leave for the absence. You may also use any available paid time off benefits you have, such as vacation, to be paid for an unpaid jury duty leave.
If you get a jury duty summons, show it to your supervisor as soon as possible. This will help us plan for your possible absence from work. We expect you to come to work whenever the court schedule permits.
Either you or XXX Company may ask the court to excuse you from jury duty if necessary. We may ask that you be relieved from going on jury duty if we think your absence would cause serious operational problems for XXX Company.
Subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations of the applicable plans, XXX Company will continue to provide health insurance benefits for the full period of unpaid jury duty leave.
After the new ADA Amendments Act sailed through Congress, it is now up to President Bush, and all indications are, that after initial hesitations, he will be signing off on it shortly. This is a bold move by legislators that opens up employers across the country to many more disability and discrimination claims under the ADA. Earlier this year it passed with overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate.
The ADAAA would broaden the ADA’s reach by essentially reversing the United States Supreme Court rulings that narrowly interpret the meaning of the key phrase “substantially limits a major life activity.” There would be several major changes as a result of this legislation, including:
The ADAAA would define disability as any actual, past, or perceived physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and would define substantially limits a major life activity as “materially restricts a major life activity.”
The ADAAA would also, for the first time, provide a list of per se major life activities. The list includes, but is not limited to, caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, working, and the performance of any major bodily function.
The ADAAA would also prohibit the consideration of measures that reduce the impact of an impairment on an individual. In other words, a hearing impaired person who can hear just fine with hearing aids who might not be covered under the ADA currently might well be covered if the ADAAA is passed into law.
The ADAAA would, however, would make clear that employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to persons who are “regarded as” being disabled but who do not actually have a disability.
There has been strong backlash from business owners who feel this will allow employees who are unhappy with their situation to use the bill as leverage in their favor even where no real disability exists. Opponents also state that this will significantly increase the amount of litigation under the ADA.
Supporters of the bill:
The chief sponsor of the bill, the House Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, said the situation was now bizarre. “An individual may be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the A.D.A. from discrimination,” Mr. Hoyer said.
The chief Republican sponsor, Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, said the Supreme Court had “chipped away at the protections” of the 1990 law, leaving millions of Americans with no recourse or remedy for discrimination.
If the ADAAA is passed, employers are likely going to face more instances in which they need to provide accommodations to employees who might not have been considered disabled in the past, but who are considered disabled under the new law. Employers should study the new law once the final version is passed and make the appropriate changes to their workplace policies and procedures. To get all federal and state laws/regulations updated daily, as well as desktop training for such hot-button issues, visit HRSentry.
With emails now becoming the predominant form of communication in most workplaces, it is crucial to be aware of how courts are interpreting this technology into contract law. A recent ruling in New York, Stevens V. Publicis (N.Y. App. Div. April 1, 2008), found that e-mail exchanges can be viewed as a “signed writing” that would allow for modifications or amendments. In this case there was a disagreement over a senior executives change of duties. The executive claimed that the email was not sufficient enough to change to actual contract, and thus would be negated. The courts agreed with the employer, saying that the e-mail exchange with names at the bottom of each e-mail, would be considered signed writing making it enforceable by law.
This ruling helps to clarify the role e-mail will be taking in the future as it continues to increase in popularity. If managed and understood properly, this can become a valuable asset for organizations as it would allow small contract negotiations to take place without the need for a separate meeting. This also opens up more doors for lawsuits and makes people be held responsible for comments made in e-mails, something that has traditionally been quite relaxed. Bottom line, e-mails must be treated as any other form of communication, don’t agree to anything prematurely, and be specific as possible to avoid misunderstandings.
Today, May 20th at 2p.m. HRSentry will be hosting a FREE webinar discussing three critical topics in the human resource industry, Workers Compensation, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Medical Leave Act. Do not miss this incredible opportunity to learn more about these complex laws which are responsible for a significant number of lawsuits and fines every year because employers do not know what is required. Protect yourself by going to the HRSentry Homepage and clicking the link “Register Now” tab on the right side of the page.
The webinar will be presented by Brenda Sabin, it will cover the specifics of each law, compare the regulations for each, and review how they interact. In addition to the webinar, upon signing up you automatically receive a 30-day trial of the HR Made Simple Kit.
Welcome to the new HRSentry blog! Started in 2003, HRSentry provides an in-depth, online human resource management and compliance service. In todays complicated business world keeping on top of an organizations HR needs is a full-time job that many companies cant, or don’t want to pay for. This results in the morphing of another employee to take care of these delicate issues. HRSentry provides busy HR specialists and those new to the field with a tool to access sample policies, training programs, and best practice standards all in an effort to reduce stress and avoid costly fines.
The idea to start this blog came from the need to have a place where as a company, we can interact with other HR professionals, provide current information on the ever-changing regulations, and address human resource issues in the news. I believe that companies who manage effective human resource programs, from training to payroll to discipline/rewards, see the benefits in their bottom line through improved retention, reduced costs, and better morale. With all this in mind, I hope to facilitate open discussions on the importance of addressing these issues before being hit by fines or lawsuits. Feel free to suggest any topics or just throw in your own two cents, happy surfing!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=93d780ba-f7e5-42f2-ae3c-b9f9077a1439)