This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
A former Culinary Institute of America employee who was fired after taking leave to care for her two sons has triable Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims against the HR director who instigated her discharge, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
The employee, Cathleen Graziadio, worked at the institute as a payroll administrator from 2007 until September 2012. In June and July of 2012, she took time off, which she sought to have classified as FMLA leave. The organization’s HR director told Graziadio that her FMLA paperwork did not justify the absences and that she needed to provide updated information. The culinary school sent her additional forms but fired her a week later—before she could complete them.
An individual human resource manager who has control over the exercise of an employee’s FMLA rights should act prudently because he or she may be individually liable as an FMLA “employer.”
Graziadio sued the school and the HR director individually for interference with FMLA leave and for FMLA retaliation. The lower court dismissed the claims, but the 2nd Circuit reversed, finding that Graziadio was entitled to a trial.
The circuit court’s decision revolved around the FMLA’s definition of an “employer,” which includes “any person” who “acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer” toward an employee. In determining whether someone is an employer, the court looks at several factors, including if the individual had the power to hire and fire employees and supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment.
A jury could find that the HR director qualified under the FMLA as an “employer” of Graziadio and therefore could be liable for violating Graziadio’s statutory rights, the court said.
Jeffrey L. Rhodes is an attorney with Doumar Martin PLLC in Arlington, Va.
Driving May Not Be an Essential Job Function of a Traveling Salesperson
A traveling pharmaceutical sales representative who was fired after she developed an eye condition that rendered her unable to drive is entitled to a trial of her Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. Although the employee was required to travel to and from doctors’ offices to sell pharmaceutical products, her job description did not list driving as an essential function. She is entitled to a trial to determine whether the company should have accommodated her disability by providing her with a driver, the court determined.
Loan Underwriters Not Entitled to Overtime
A wage and hour class-action lawsuit filed by residential loan underwriters against a bank was properly dismissed by a lower court because the underwriters were exempt administrative employees, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. They were exempt because their job duties related to the general business operation of the bank and they exercised discretion and independent judgment, the court held.
Tip Pooling Limited to Customarily Tipped Employees
In a decision with important implications for the service industry, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers cannot implement policies requiring tipped employees to share their tips with untipped workers. The 2-1 decision, which upheld a regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Labor in 2011, reversed trial court decisions from Oregon and Nevada.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
SHRM Annual Conference & Exposition
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies