Before employers are forced to deal with these sorts of issues, applications must be filed and leaves must be approved. The process is administered by the Department of Family and Medical Leave, which decides whether to approve leaves and also pays employees for time off at up to $850 weekly based on their normal wages. Employer involvement in this process is relatively minimal, though there are steps that must be taken to help the program flow smoothly. What follows is an overview of the basics of the PFML and how employers can successfully navigate it.

Leave Options

The maximum benefit of 26 weeks of leave is available in a narrow range of circumstances. It may be used by employees to care for active military service members who suffer serious, service-related medical problems. Other types of service-related leaves are capped at 12 weeks. The PFML also provides up to 20 weeks of leave caused by an employee’s own serious medical condition. Though leave to care for a family member’s serious medical condition is also available, the cap is 12 weeks and the benefit cannot be used until July 1, 2021. Employees can also take up to 12 weeks of leave per year to bond with a newborn or newly adopted child prior to his/her first birthday. Again, though all approved leaves under the PFML are paid, the money does not come from employers. The Department of Family and Medical Leave is responsible for making the wage payments outlined by the statute. Sick and vacation leave benefits need not accrue during an employee’s leave of absence. Employers must continue to make their share of health insurance payments for absent workers and employees must do the same.

Employer Obligations

As all employers know or should know by now, the PFML requires of them two major tasks: provide information to their workers though posters and policies and make quarterly payments to the Department to fund the family and medical leave program. Both these tasks should have been undertaken long ago, with employers calculating employee contributions based on a set formula, contributing a roughly equal amount if they have 25 or more employees, and sending the money to the Department. Employers also need to determine whether independent contractors who may perform work for them are covered and, in limited circumstances, whether an exemption from the law applies to them. Penalties may apply for failing to comply with any of these requirements. Finally, employers must designate a PFML Administrator through the Department’s web portal to handle the processing of information that will be requested when employees apply for benefits. There is little else for employers to do other than ensuring that they comply with the law when employees apply for and/or receive leave benefits.

Application Process

When employees believe they are entitled to a leave under the statute, they must apply directly to the Department up to 60 days in advance of the leave date. Employers who are asked about the process need only refer workers to the Department’s online application portal. Employers first get notice that the application is underway and are later notified it is complete and asked to review it. Comments by employers on the merits of applications will be accepted and considered, but the Department of Family and Medical Leave makes all decisions whether to approve or deny them. As a further part of that process, employers will be asked to both confirm the accuracy of an employee’s information and to provide data such as whether other leaves were taken, whether employees receive sick leave or vacation pay for absences, the period of employment and wages earned, the employee’s regular work schedule, and other information. Once the Department makes a decision on an application, it will notify the employer and describe the terms of the leave and/or reasons for denial, as the case may be.

Job Protection and Retaliation

Employees on an approved leave under the PFML enjoy job protection, and employers cannot retaliate against them for participating in the program. Regardless of any inconvenience to their employers, employees must be returned to the same or a similar job with similar pay and benefits when their leaves end. This rule will not apply when bona fide layoffs occur among similarly situated employees during the leave period. Employers cannot punish their workers for applying for or taking leave. Damages of up to three times lost wages and reimbursement of legal fees may be awarded for transgressions of the law. An exception to these job protections exists when leave is taken for treatment of substance abuse. Employers with an established, communicated policy providing for job loss based on substance use may be permitted to terminate an employee on paid leave. For workers who will return to work, employers may uniformly require a fitness for duty certification from a medical provider.

The post The New Paid Family and Medical Leave Act: What’s an Employer to Do? appeared first on KSR Law.

The Attorney General filed suit against the two companies in July. She asserts that Massachusetts law makes Uber and Lyft drivers employees rather than contractors. The difference between the two is significant, since only employees enjoy legal protections in the forms of minimum wages, workers’ compensation, sick leave, and perhaps health insurance benefits, among others. Healey has reportedly said that Uber and Lyft have taken a ‘free ride’ on the backs of Massachusetts workers for ‘too long.’ She accuses them of profiting from exploitative conduct that is illegal under Massachusetts law, and seeks to put a stop to the practice of classifying drivers as independent contractors. The state’s classification statute requires that employers treat workers as employees unless they are free from workday control; work outside the normal course of the employer’s business; and operate independent companies.

The suit follows one filed by several cities and the attorney general in California, which recently passed a worker classification law that is similar to the one in Massachusetts. In August, a San Francisco judge issued a preliminary injunction ordering Uber and Lyft to classify workers there as employees under the new California law. The companies have vowed to appeal. They assert that many workers prefer to be classified as contractors and that the court’s ruling amounts to an attack on their independence.

Uber and Lyft also face class action suits for damages by drivers in Massachusetts on the same grounds. They have combatted the claims in part by seeking to compel arbitration of individual suits so that drivers cannot proceed against them as a group via a class action, which present risks for extremely high damage and legal fee awards.

The post Uber and Lyft Face Suit Over Treatment of Drivers as Independent Contractors Rather than Employees appeared first on KSR Law.

The new Equal Pay Act revises an existing law that, due to court interpretation, has been effectively useless to address wage disparities. On July 1, that law will mandate that all workers be paid the same for “comparable” work regardless of gender and will bar companies from ordering their employees not to talk about their pay. Courts evaluating Equal Pay Act claims will ignore job titles and focus on whether jobs require “substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility” and are “performed under similar working conditions.” Penalties under the Act will be substantial and include the payment of employee legal fees but can be abated or avoided completely by self-evaluation and concrete action in advance of July 1, 2018. Implementation of the law was delayed two years from its passage in July 2016 to provide employers time to address pay disparities.

Employers who haven’t yet done so should move quickly to determine whether wage inequity exists. Doing this with the assistance of counsel, either in-house or from outside the company, should permit the initial findings of an Equal Pay Act audit to be kept confidential, and compensation specialists may be helpful in some cases. This makes sense given the existence of a federal law on equal pay that does not shield audits in the same way the new Massachusetts Equal Pay Act will. Once an initial audit is completed, employers and their attorneys should decide how to address the results and whether more audit work is needed. Under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, progress on abating unequal pay is required before the audit will be a useful defense to suit.

The post With the New Equal Pay Act Set to Take Effect on July 1, 2018, it’s Time for Employers to Evaluate their Wage Practices appeared first on KSR Law.

I.  INTRODUCTION

The reasons for the program will be discussed. They include the need to learn the basics of sexual harassment, understand how to recognize and deal with potential problems, and help employers avoid costly and time-consuming sexual harassment lawsuits. The employer’s sexual harassment policy will form the foundation for the training. It will be reviewed in detail during the course.

II.  WHAT YOU’LL LEARN

In this segment, attendees will get a summary of what they’ll learn in the course. This includes tools to help them identify sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors at work; strategies for dealing with situations effectively as they arise; and ways to prevent discrimination. The employer’s sexual harassment policy will be a focal point of the training session and form the basis for company expectations about employee and supervisor behavior.

III. GROUND RULES

Training ground rules will be discussed. Attendees will be instructed that actual work situations are off limits, as is any debate about the pros/cons of the law as it exists and applies to the workplace. Questions will always be entertained throughout the course, but the trainer will provide only generalized information about sexual harassment law and will not comment openly about individual harassment situations.

IV.  WHAT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

In this segment, attendees will learn how the law defines sexual harassment. The two types of harassment – quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment – will be described and discussed. Potential victims and perpetrators will be defined.

V.  FREQUENCY OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The large and increasing numbers of sexual harassment and related gender discrimination lawsuits will be discussed. Attendees will get the most recent statistics, including data about the millions of dollars in damages employers pay to former employees in sexual harassment cases every year. Real-life cases may be discussed to give participants a better understanding how sexual issues play out in the workplace.

VI.  THE PERCEPTION OF HARASSMENT

Attendees will learn that a key issue in sexual harassment cases is the perception of varying parties. The will come to understand that conduct one person may think is humorous is in fact offensive to another person, who may smile through an incident rather than making waves, but could later file a lawsuit. The class will then read written descriptions of various scenarios of workplace conduct and decide whether the conduct is offensive or not. The varying reactions of attendees will be discussed. In some classes, a short video of questionable conduct will be shown and the issues it raises will be discussed.

VII. WHY IS HARASSMENT WRONG?

In this segment, attendees will learn what state and federal laws say about sexual harassment. They’ll also learn about how it reduces productivity, undermines business success, distracts employees and managers, and is offensive to victims.

VIII. RESPONDING TO A COMPLAINT

In this segment, we’ll discuss how to respond to sexual issues reasonably, seriously and promptly. Employees and managers will each be instructed on their duties to report misconduct that may occur in their presence or about which they may otherwise learn. Proper and improper responses of managers will be discussed. Dealing with and following up on complaints will also be covered.

IX.  DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATIONS

This segment will differ based on audience. Employees will be instructed how the company handles complaints, including investigations, record keeping, discipline and follow up. Managers will discuss the process in more detail and will be instructed how to document and evaluate various situations.

X.  CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

The importance of correcting improper behaviors and the range of potential disciplinary actions will be covered. Attendees will be instructed to never allow a questionable situation to continue. How disciplinary options are evaluated and applied will be discussed.

By Attorney Jack K. Merrill – Needham, MA Employment Lawyer

Attorney Jack K. Merrill is a Massachusetts employment lawyer and specializes in employment law and civil litigation. He counsels small businesses and individuals on discrimination cases and other employment related legal matters.

The post Massachusetts Sexual Harassment Training Outline appeared first on KSR Law.

I.  INTRODUCTION

The reasons for the program will be discussed. They include the value of learning the basics of discrimination law, including its different and complex elements. The need to understand what discrimination is in its various forms and to seek assistance when questionable or difficult situations arise will be emphasized, as will the costs involved when employers are forced to defend discrimination lawsuits.

II.  WHAT YOU’LL LEARN

In this segment, attendees will get a summary of what they’ll learn in the course. This includes tools to help them understand discrimination and avoid/prevent it. The employer’s anti-discrimination policies will be the focal point of the training session.

III.  GROUND RULES

Training ground rules will be discussed. Attendees will be instructed that actual work situations are off limits, as is any debate about the pros/cons of the law as it exists and applies to the workplace. Questions will always be entertained throughout the course, but the trainer will provide only generalized information about sexual harassment law and will not comment openly about individual harassment situations.

IV.  WHAT IS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION?

In this segment, employees and supervisors get an overview of discrimination laws in their various forms at state and federal levels. Issues such as race, gender, age and other types of discrimination are described generally, as is sexual harassment. The litany of laws that protect employees from discrimination will be reviewed. Special areas of focus can be included for discussion detail in this segment, including handicap and sex discrimination.

V.  EMPLOYMENT AREAS COVERED BY LAW

Attendees will learn that discrimination laws have wide ranging applications. Claims can be brought based on employee terminations; failures to hire; the asking of improper interview questions; denials of promotions, salaries or benefits; and other common workplace events. Types of situations that might lead to trouble in various areas of the employer/employee relationship will be discussed. Examples of problem situations areas will be presented.

VI.  PRIMARY AREAS OF CONCERN

The most common types of discrimination claims will be discussed. These typically include sexual harassment, gender discrimination, age claims, and handicap discrimination cases. The complexities of various types of discrimination will be discussed with an emphasis on learning how to identify red flags and resolve issues before they become legal problems.

VII.  WHO IS LIABLE?

The issue who is liable for discrimination will be discussed in some detail. In most cases, this includes an employer and any individuals who are accused of acting improperly. The circumstances that could lead to individual liability will be discussed. These include cases where supervisors are directly and indirectly involved in events and those where actions may have unintended discriminatory consequences.

VIII.  POTENTIAL FINANCIAL COSTS

Attendees will learn about the different types of damages that can be awarded in discrimination cases. These include damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, punishment of wrongdoers, and legal fees. Circumstances that could lead to court or MCAD orders that anti-discrimination training take place will be discussed.

IX. EMPLOYER’S DUTY TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION

What must an employer do to prevent discrimination and avoid lawsuits? We’ll discuss how to promote a non-discriminatory atmosphere, apply company policies and, for management employees, how to report or investigate complaints and take effective remedial action when necessary. We’ll also discuss the importance of paying attention to employee conduct, addressing issues promptly when they arise, and setting a good example for fellow employees and staff members.

X.  RESPONDING TO A COMPLAINT

In this segment, we’ll discuss how to respond to employee concerns reasonably, seriously and promptly. Employees and managers will each be instructed on their duties to report misconduct that may occur in their presence or about which they may otherwise learn. Proper and improper responses of managers will be discussed. Dealing with and following up on complaints will also be covered.

XI.  DISCRIMINATION INVESTIGATIONS

This segment will differ based on audience. Employees will be instructed how the company handles complaints, including investigations, record keeping, discipline and follow up. Managers will discuss the process in more detail and will be instructed how to document and evaluate various situations.

XII.  CORRECTIVE ACTIONS

The importance of correcting improper behaviors and the range of potential disciplinary actions will be covered. Attendees will be instructed to never allow a questionable situation to continue. How disciplinary options are evaluated and applied will be discussed.

By Attorney Jack K. Merrill – Needham, MA Employment Lawyer

Attorney Jack K. Merrill is a Massachusetts employment lawyer and specializes in employment law and civil litigation. He counsels small businesses and individuals on discrimination cases and other employment related legal matters.

The post Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Training Outline appeared first on KSR Law.

By Jack Merrill

If you thought the disclaimer in your employee handbook would protect you against a wrongful discharge suit by a disgruntled former employee, think again. A 2001 appeals court decision suggests that the terms of almost any manual can bind an employer, making careful legal planning more important than ever.

Though many employment lawyers have long been advising employers to follow their manuals closely in all but extreme circumstances, the appeals court’s refusal to enforce an apparently typical manual disclaimer was nonetheless surprising. The court effectively held that factual circumstances can override disclaimer language of almost any type. This may mean that employers who ignore handbook rules will find themselves in a place none want to ever be: in front of a jury, trying to explain that a decision to terminate its employee was somehow ‘justified.’

The appeals court ruling should send employers scrambling to review their manuals. There are two things each must be sure of. First, that handbook terms, taken as a whole, do not suggest that a binding contract of employment exists. Second, that the manual does not grant employees procedural rights that the company cannot live with.

The employer subjected to the appeals court’s recent decision committed errors in both these areas. Like almost every company with an employee handbook, it included language disclaiming contractual rights and obligations. The disclaimer, however, appeared only once, and only in an introductory section to the handbook. Its placement was not prominent enough to properly inform employees that policies could be ignored in the company’s discretion.

This fact was critical in light of handbook language suggesting that workers could reasonably expect to receive warnings and fair treatment before they were fired. For example, the manual provided for a “probationary period” that could lead workers to believe that their 91st day of employment was somehow more secure than work during days 1 through 89. The manual also contained sections entitled “guarantee of fair treatment” and “progressive discipline.” These provisions led workers to believe they would not be summarily fired.

“The rights granted are simply that the employee, except in cases of egregious misconduct, will have at least two warnings prior to termination and an opportunity to challenge the warnings by telling his side of the story to his supervisor and then to higher authorities,” the court wrote.

Unfortunately for the employer, its decision to ignore these procedures was met with an aggressive lawsuit. The company now faces a costly trial that could result in big damages. Had it carefully drafted its handbook, these pitfalls would have been avoided.

Other employers should learn from those mistakes. All employee handbooks should be reviewed by counsel before they are implemented, and employers should plan to closely follow rules contained in them.

The post Wrongful Discharge Suits Made Easier appeared first on KSR Law.

By Jack Merrill

The state’s highest court gave a major boost in 2001 to alleged victims of sexual harassment when it decided that years old conduct can be used to prove work-related sexual harassment lawsuits. The decision made it easier for employees to prove their cases and increased employers’ risks of facing expensive and time-consuming lawsuits.

Massachusetts courts are now far friendlier to sexual harassment claimants than those at the federal level, where employees have only six months from the time they experience and identify sexual harassment to file a discrimination complaint. In the Commonwealth, alleged victims face much more lax restrictions. They can argue that events from years past contribute to a pattern of hostility that, when combined with recent misconduct, establishes a sexually harassing environment.

The decision will likely increase the volume of sexual harassment lawsuits by simultaneously expanding options for employees and making it more difficult for employers to achieve early judgments in cases where allegations of harassment are aging. As a result, employers face increased risks in the workplace. Now more than ever, they must be diligent in quickly identifying and effectively dealing with sexual misconduct on the job.

In rationalizing its decision, the court failed to acknowledge the potential damage it caused to employers. It wrote that strict adherence to the six-month filing requirement for sexual harassment “is fair neither to the employee …nor the employer,” which might then face a lawsuit before having a chance to resolve the underlying problem internally. The court held that an offended employee can try internal resolution and, if it fails, use old events to support a long-term pattern of harassment if one incident of sexual impropriety occurred within six months of the complaint filing date.

The court’s theory redefines to some extent the accepted principle that long-term sexual misconduct can be actionable if events form a continuing pattern of harassment. Though it has always been true that a plaintiff can at times tie older events to newer ones and argue that the totality establishes a hostile work environment, it was generally accepted that harassment victims needed to file their claims within six months of the date they identified that hostility. Now, it appears that each isolated event of sexual misconduct restarts the six-month filing limitation. A victim might go a year or more without experiencing harassment, then argue that a new sexual incident, such as a joke, opens the door to a suit based largely on prior alleged misconduct.

Employers thus face an even more daunting task in the war against sexual harassment. They must ensure both that complaints are dealt with effectively (a duty that Massachusetts employers have long had) and that the victims of harassment are not exposed to even a hint of subsequent impropriety. Though the court did not eradicate the traditional employer defense that it responded reasonably in addressing a harassment complaint before suit was filed, it made clear that employers will normally need to go all the way to a jury to make that argument. They will, then, be forced to expend time and money defending even a winning case.

The Supreme Judicial Court decision makes it more important than ever for employers to maintain and distribute effective anti-discrimination policies and properly train management and others to identify and address sexual misconduct on the job. In all cases, complaints must be thoroughly and quickly investigated. Before action is taken, employers should consult with counsel to consider the legal options.

The post Sexual Harassment Suits Easier to Prove appeared first on KSR Law.

By Jack Merrill

Confused employers and employees are scratching their heads. They know it’s okay for consenting adults to flirt at work. They know it’s not okay for one employee to grope another, call her sexually derogatory names, or make repeated, unwelcome sexual advances. What employers and employees don’t know is how to deal with situations that fall somewhere in between — like the one where the “harasser” claims sexual talk or touching was consensual and the “victim” says it wasn’t.

When a complaint like that is made, employers face a daunting task. Their often untrained managers must apply fluid legal principles to conflicting factual stories. They must balance rights of victims against those of harassers. And they must avoid walking into a lawsuit, since either the victim or the harasser could sue for damages allegedly caused by the employer’s response to a complaint.

Making it through that process requires a fundamental understanding of two types of sexual harassment. The first is quid pro quo harassment, which involves demands for sex as a condition of a fair work environment. The second is hostile environment harassment, a sexually charged atmosphere that unreasonably interferes with a victim’s ability to perform his/her job.

Quid pro quo harassment seems simple enough. When a supervisor requests sex from an employee and, upon rejection of the advance, fires the employee, that’s quid pro quo harassment. The victim’s punishment can, of course, take subtler forms, such as poor job reviews, reduced raises, or undesirable work assignments. When this happens, analyzing the link between the sexual advance and the adverse job action can make quid pro quo cases rather complex. Among the more well-known of these cases involved President Bill Clinton and Paula Jones.

Hostile environment claims can be even harder to assess. With this type of harassment, sexual conduct must be offensive and pervasive enough to block full participation in the workplace. A hostile environment might exist where a supervisor repeatedly peers down an employee’s clothing, describes him/her in sexual terms, and/or touches the employee sexually.

Early preparation can help avoid sexual harassment complaints. Employers should review applicable laws, implement strong sexual harassment policies, and train workers on the basics of harassment law. As issues arise, counsel should be consulted before the employer takes final action. This will ensure compliance with legal requirements in all instances.

The post Sexual Conduct at Work appeared first on KSR Law.

By Jack Merrill

It seems simple enough – an employee earns wages, leaves the company, and gets a check for what’s due. More and more often, however, former workers are consulting attorneys and bringing lawsuits for money owed but unpaid on termination. Because the penalties for failing to pay wages are severe, employers must be well versed in Massachusetts laws that govern what they must pay and when.

First and foremost, companies need to know what’s at stake when wages go unpaid. Under the state’s wage payment law, individuals who fail to pay money due on time can face criminal penalties. The corporate structure provides no refuge; presidents, treasurers and other officers or managers can be criminally fined or sentenced to time in jail for violating the law. In addition, employers who fail to pay wages due can be assessed  damages of three times the money owed to a worker, plus the legal fees accrued in forcing compliance with the law.

Problems with wage payments are most common when a worker leaves a company, whether by choice or upon termination or layoff. When an employee quits, wages must be paid on the next regular pay date; when he/she is fired, all wages due must be handed over immediately, before the worker leaves the property.

Employers often run into trouble in the latter situation, which is typically contentious to begin with. They either fail to pay undisputed wages, electing instead to await the next regular payday, or they don’t properly calculate and pay amounts due. The latter error is often caused by a company’s failure to understand that earned commissions, holiday pay, and vacation time constitute wages under Massachusetts law.

The vacation issue is so troublesome for employers that the Massachusetts Attorney General has issued an advisory alert on the subject. Though employers are not required to grant vacation time, they must pay over whatever they do award to their employees. When an employee leaves work, the company must determine how many vacation days are accrued and unused. It must make wage payment in lieu of these vacation days when it makes final payment of wages to the worker.

Procedures for earning and using vacations are generally left to the company. It can mandate advance notice, carryover rules, and the like, and can cap earned vacation accrual as it sees fit. Once vacation time is earned, however, it constitutes wages due and payable. Employers often have problems with this concept as they struggle to determine whether or not vacation days are earned for wage purposes.

The rule to apply here is simple: when in doubt, vacation time should be considered earned wages. The employee should be paid upon departure from the company, even if the company intended otherwise, since penalties for failing to make payment are automatic and the benefit of doubt in wage cases goes to the employee.

The same general policy should apply in commission situations. Where company policy dictates that commissions are earned upon a specific occurrence, the money owed should be paid in the regular course of business, regardless of whether the worker leaves the company before the payment date. Companies should be careful to maintain a strict distinction between commissions and bonuses, which could be subject to the wage statute under certain circumstances. Businesses should also be aware that there exists a separate commission statute that requires timely payment of money earned to independent contractors, and that it is improper to terminate a contract in order to avoid paying commissions or other money due to an employee or contractor.

The post The Massachusetts Wage Payment Law appeared first on KSR Law.

The employment-at-will doctrine has survived challenge after challenge in Massachusetts courtrooms. It provides that the employer/employee relationship is a bargain between parties of relatively equivalent bargaining power. Either employer or employee, then, is free to terminate the relationship at will. The only exceptions to the rule emanate from statutes (anti-discrimination laws, for example) and narrow exceptions to the at-will doctrine that prevent employers from firing employees for reasons that violate established public policies.

Employees have made numerous efforts to expand the exceptions by arguing that they were fired for reasons that controvert public policy. In most cases, their efforts fail. One attack involved a single mother who was fired for refusing to work long hours. She sued her employer and claimed that her firing violated an established public policy that favors the care and protection of children. Working until 10 p.m. nightly, she claimed, would cause her to neglect her child, who did not have a second parent at home.

Once again, however, the court declined the employee’s attempt to broaden the narrow exceptions to the at-will doctrine. In affirming a judgment for the employer, the court concluded that the at-will rule cannot be set aside based on the “special domestic circumstances” of a single employee.

Exceptions to the at-will doctrine remain extremely narrow. Under the rubric of “public policy,” the courts protect employees who are fired for asserting legal rights and doing what the law requires. Typically, the public policy exception is applied to employees who serve on juries, file workers’ compensation claims, or testify at criminal trials. Virtually anyone else can be fired at the discretion of employers, even when the boss acts in a way that others find distasteful or even dishonest.

In recent years, Massachusetts courts have declined to protect employees who refuse to take mandatory drug tests, complain internally regarding company trade practices, or participate in shareholder derivative suits. The rationale that underpins the courts’ decisions focuses on the perceived bargain between employers and employees under which parties agree that either may walk away from the relationship at any time.

It is only when the courts identify an exceptionally strong public policy reason to avoid job termination that they act to protect employees from firing. For example, employees cannot be fired for refusing to give false testimony against co-workers. Nor can they be terminated for reporting criminal activity at work, whether the report is made internally or to public authorities.

As a practical matter, legitimate grievances for wrongful termination are few and far between. Of the numerous inquiries received by attorneys, most are not candidates for litigation. Employees and employers alike are typically told that the courts will not be likely to stand in the way of an employer’s right to fire an employee.

The post Employment At Will appeared first on KSR Law.