Clifford M. Koen

Contemporary practical and legal guidelines for written employer-employee communication

Given the favorable support for organized labor by the government, understanding the legal ramifications of written documents is important. In this paper, the authors review the more significant ways organizations communicate with employees in writing, and provide some current practical guidelines managers can follow to prepare communications that are more effective and more positive. Where appropriate, the legal implications of poorly written communication are addressed and guidelines are provided based on current legal trends. The author noted that nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice, and that employers should seek the advice of a knowledgeable attorney when attempting to resolve potential legal issues associated with any type of employee communication.

Harassment: it's not (all) about sex! Part II: plaintiffs, supervisors, and preventive protocols.

Policies prohibiting sexual harassment, although a good start, are not enough to protect health care employers from the risk of significant liability to an employee who suffers unlawful workplace harassment. The purpose of the second part of this 2-part article was to help health care managers introduce new policies, procedures, and protocols to ensure that their organizations are adequately protected from the threat of charges of unlawful harassment.

Harassment: it's not (all) about sex! Part I: The evolving legal environment.

Policies prohibiting sexual harassment, although a good start, are not enough to protect health care employers from the risk of significant liability to an employee who experiences unlawful workplace harassment. The purpose of the first of this 2-part article is to help health care managers review what they already know and to update their knowledge of the legal environment associated with the ever-changing landscape of harassment in the workplace.

Attention Deficit Disorder and the Americans With Disabilities Act: Is Anyone Paying Attention?

As millions of individuals who have been given a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder enter the workforce, more individuals with these mental impairments are filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008 by the ADA Amendments Act. The ADA forbids employment discrimination based on an individual’s disability and also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Health care managers must be well prepared with knowledge of the employers’ rights and responsibilities under the law. By exploring the legal challenges being made to employers’ policies and practices and examining how the courts are resolving those disputes, managers can reduce the risk of expensive, time-consuming litigation caused by employment discrimination claims based on disability.

Rightful Discharge: Making "Termination" Mean It's REALLY Over Part 2-Proper Documentation.

The importance of proper documentation when taking any type of disciplinary action, particularly a termination, cannot be overstated. Proper documentation is a fundamental requirement placed upon employers by the courts when determining whether a termination is “legal.” The following sample forms do not encompass all types of documentation that may be required for a given set of circumstances; they do provide the framework for health care managers to fashion their own forms to fit their employer’s needs.

Dress codes and appearance policies: challenges under federal legislation, part 3: Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the National Labor Relations Act.

As more and more individuals express themselves with tattoos and body piercings and push the envelope on what is deemed appropriate in the workplace, employers have an increased need for creation and enforcement of reasonable dress codes and appearance policies. As with any employment policy or practice, an appearance policy must be implemented and enforced without regard to an individual’s race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, age, or any other protected status. A policy governing dress and appearance based on the business needs of an employer that is applied fairly and consistently and does not have a disproportionate effect on any protected class will generally be upheld if challenged in court. By examining some of the more common legal challenges to dress codes and how courts have resolved the disputes, health care managers can avoid many potential problems. This article, the third part of a 3-part examination of dress codes and appearance policies, focuses on the issues of race and national origin under the Civil Rights Act, disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. Pertinent court cases that provide guidance for employers are addressed.

Dress codes and appearance policies: challenges under federal legislation, part 1: title VII of the civil rights act and religion.

As more and more individuals express themselves with tattoos and body piercings and push the envelope on what is deemed appropriate in the workplace, employers have an increased need for creation and enforcement of reasonable dress codes and appearance policies. As with any employment policy or practice, an appearance policy must be implemented and enforced without regard to an individual’s race, color, gender, national origin, religion, disability, age, or other protected status. A policy governing dress and appearance based on the business needs of an employer that is applied fairly and consistently and does not have a disproportionate effect on any protected class will generally be upheld if challenged in court. By examining some of the more common legal challenges to dress codes and how courts have resolved the disputes, health care managers can avoid many potential problems. This article, the second part of a 3-part examination of dress codes and appearance policies, focuses on the issue of gender under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pertinent court cases that provide guidance for employers are addressed.

Guidelines for conducting bulletproof workplace investigations: part I--preparation and interviewing issues.

Conducting proper and thorough investigations is one of the most important and most difficult responsibilities for today’s health care manager in terms of avoiding or successfully defending lawsuits. This article provides guidance for managers on how to use proper interview and investigative techniques while avoiding a violation of employees’ rights to privacy. Suggestions are provided on how to protect confidential information obtained by the investigation. Interview questions that may be asked during the investigation are provided. By asking appropriate questions and documenting all aspects of the investigative process, employers can provide useful information to their legal counsel and be on the winning side if the situation results in litigation.

Guidelines for conducting bulletproof workplace investigations: Part II--searches, surveillance, and other legal issues.

A proper and thorough investigation can help avoid or successfully defend lawsuits. When conducting workplace investigations, employers must take care to conduct reasonable searches and not violate employees’ rights to privacy. This article addresses privacy and other legal issues surrounding the use of various types of electronic surveillance including wiretapping, video/photography, and monitoring of e-mail. While conducting such searches, employers must be vigilant in their efforts to avoid liability for defamation and to properly document the investigation. Guidance is provided on these issues along with advice on the recommendation and/or remedial action that may result from the investigation and a checklist of additional considerations when conducting investigations resulting from harassment.

Your workers may be contingent, but your liability for them is certain: part I: employment status and fair labor standards act issues.

Hiring contingent workers can significantly help health care employers reduce labor costs while maintaining the staff required for quality patient care. However, a number of federal laws create legal landmines that await the unsuspecting employer. The purpose of this article was to familiarize health care employers with some of the rapidly evolving legal issues that surround the use of contingent workers.