As many of our readers remember, Twitter exploded recently with a flurry of posts as temperatures across the nation began to soar. For people here in Indiana, it was hard not to notice rising temps or the score of angry workers forced to work in such heat. But for those areas of the nation not sweltering from the heat, it was hard not to recognize the threat this caused to fast-food workers, especially not after one McDonald’s employee had to be taken to the hospital after passing out at work.
Back in a December post under our wrongful termination category, we introduced our readers to the legal problems facing one Iowa dental assistant who was fired from her job because her boss was worried he might try to have an affair with her. The story, which peaked national attention seven months ago, made a lot of residents here in Indiana wonder whether the termination was really all that lawful. It’s certainly something the now 33-year-old dental assistant considered when she filed suit against her employer.
An interesting case on the West Coast this month has some people here in Indiana talking about whether the rights of non-union workers are being protected in the court system. The issue stems from a case in which a group of non-union employees threatened to strike because of unsafe working conditions. A federal judge granted the employer an injunction, effectively putting a stop to the strike, but now the 9th Circuit court may be rethinking the decision.
As a reader of our blog, you may already know that the Civil Rights Act protects you from discrimination in the workplace based on religion, age, race, ethnicity, national origin and gender. But what about sexual orientation and gender identity? Does the bill extend rights in these circumstances as well? You might be surprised to learn that in many states this isn't the case and even here in Indiana the law does not provide definitive protection against wrongful termination or retaliation for people who are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender (LGBT).
A heated legal dispute in New Jersey last month could be catching the attention of workers here in Indiana this month. The dispute centers around two whistleblowers who claim that their boss retaliated against them after they alerted an auditor and the FBI to a suspicious bank deal being made by their employer. The case certainly highlights the importance of whistleblower laws and how they play into retaliation claims.
When it comes to filing a wrongful termination claim, one of the most disappointing things that could happen is not being able to argue your case in court. Even worse still would be losing your case despite the evidence that support your claims. But this is the risk people in Indiana, and across the nation, take when filing these types of claims against their employers in the hopes of being able to present their side of the story.
As obesity continues to rise in the United States, more and more employers have made a push towards improving the overall health of their employees. As we've mentioned in past posts, this has been achieved through healthier vending machine options to incentive programs as well. But some employers have been dipping their toes in illegal by requiring their employees to disclose their family histories, or worse still, requiring prospective employees to take pre-employment medical exams.
Some of our readers here in Indianapolis may remember the employment scandal that rocked the 7-Eleven name just weeks ago. As some of you may recall, federal investigators executed search warrants on 7-Eleven stores across the nation after receiving information about possible employee exploitation. According to investigators, they found several instances where undocumented immigrants were not only being employed at the stores but exploited because of their unauthorized immigration status.
It seems like the U.S. Supreme Court has had its hands full this year with everything from criminal law to immigration law. But it's a recent decision for employment law that has a lot of people here in Indiana and across the nation frowning this month. The court's sharply divided decision revolved around supervisors and how this managerial title played into discrimination and wrongful termination cases--a topic some of our readers may remember us writing about several months ago.